Right from day one I realized that the extensions provided by Firefox could become an security issue.[...]
OK, so it's about the "extensions provided by Firefox"? No, it's explicitly about extensions not provided by firefox but strapped on by some mechanism devised by the extension's developer, be it Google, Yahoo, whomever.
Extensions provided by Firefox are downloaded via a secure connection - it's your Google-toolbar that comes unprotected.
So, if you don't have a clue, read the article. If you still have any doubt that you fully understand it, don't comment on it.
In your example, C's response dos not depend on what C receives from A. Also, B is magically able to simutanously send two messages (no serial device can do that).
If the responce (C -> A) is indeed independent from the first message (A -> C), then A and C can sart sending in parallel, thus eliminating the gain in speed. Also, you assume that the message sent from A to C is identical to the message sent from C to A. Assuming that, I'd offen the even more efficient startegy of using A -> A, C -> C, eliminating the need for B entirely.
Minors or in fact direct relatives and spouses should never, ever be forced to testify in any case, civil or criminal, that involves their family.
It forces parents to lie to their children or to hide what they're doing. It puts minors in a situation, where they have to harm their parents in order to comply with the law.
I live in germany and protecting families from situations like these was elevated to a constitution-level right after WW2. Guess why.
Go and try to hunt down the b/w french 60's movie "la jettee" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056119/), shot entirely as a series of stills with the action being told by a narrator from the off. Way better than 12 Monkeys if you ask me (I saw them both in a small independent theater once, la jettee in french with english subtitles)
Any justice system that allows for a daughter to be forced to testify against her mother is severely broken. The fact the daughter is only 10 makes it so totally wrong ins so many aspects...
Should a mother, if her 7 year old daughter calls out for her (or others of the family, toddlers and such) before looking after her family first shut down the computer lest someone who shares her household might see something that they might later be foced to spill up in court?
In Germany, first degree relatives cannot be forced to testify before any court. Period. No matter how guilty the accused and what the crime. We had this from 1939 to 1944, you still have it today.
So, kudos to Mr. Jobs. I think he's taken his current stance with Apple's bottom line in mind, but in this case it just happens to coincide with the best interest of Apple's customers. Nicely done.
In other words: If you want to be successful, "do what your customers would want you to do" seems to be a pretty good policy. Now, could someone please go and tell the music industry, Microsoft etc. about this?
The ISP is germany's biggest ISP, the "Telekom". By the law, they were only entitled to keep logs that are required for billing. If you have a flatrate, no IP-logs are needed for billing and other ISPs didn't keep them, but the Telekom did.
Now here's the interesting bit: The entity that owns most of Telekom's shares is - the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, the German gouvernment. The "Innenminister", the guy responsible for the justice system, police etc. was one of the kind of politicians who'd like to know everything about everyone for the sake of "security". (Who needs freedom if they are secure? Oh wait, that was prison.)
So, while by the law he could not force ISPs to retain that data, the biggest german ISP that just happened to be controlled by... him(!)... did so anyway, aiding law enforcement in trivial (and here: unfounded) cases with said data.
Unfortunately, even in germany, noone seems to bother about privacy anymore.
Ain't gonna happen. Why? By now, too much commercial interest is directed towards the web. The technology will be developed, but it will be developed by some company that'll lock it in with patents. Subsequently, it won't gain enough traction, wont be based on open standards and thus won't work as infrastructure that everyone will accept to invest in.
Too expensive to develop for free -> dead before it's even invented.
The interesting legal argument here is, that by pointing out that the case is (among other flaws) on a level of jurisdiction that surely can't be right, you voluntarily subject yourself to whatever that legal systems likes to come up with next.
The next interesting legal argument here is, that the judge seems not to be a judge, but a referee. His job is not to descide what's right and what's wrong, but to make sure the rules of the game are observed. They can't even descide that the case does not belong before them.
The last interesting legal argument is, that if the one who's sued doesn't appear, the one who sues gets all they want. Hell, they should have asked for a billion or two along with eevryone working for spamhaus and their children, relatives and frieds as slaves (for the next 7 generations). By the logic of the US legal system, they might just have won that as well.
Would I have appeared bofore them? And let the spammer force me and my non-profit organization to accept to be financially crippled by the spammer's for-profit ressources? No, I'd have shown them the finger as well (living in Europe and feeling there's a lot of nice areas for vacation that are on this side of the pool, so I don't really need to visit the US).
Re:The problem with guis is they don't work
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 1
For a simple example, look at a spreadsheet in its most basic form. Tab goes to the next column over, return goes to the next row down.
What you're describing here is not a CLI, it's a text-mode GUI. In fact, the example of usage for your "CLI-spreadsheet" is identical to how you handle Excel (oh, how that beast sucks!) in the GUI if you disregard the mouse.
In a command-line-interface spreadsheet, you'd just be typing X-Y-value - triples until (let's say) you hit ESCAPE. Then you're in "command mode". If you now enter ":p", you'll send the result to a printer. Maybe typing ":pp" will bring up a print preview as simple graphic displayed in fullscreen (VESA?) mode.
That would be a CLI-spreadsheet, and I'd like to see you working on that efficiently.
Of course NAT has nothing to do with security. All those worms probing specific ports for known vulnerabilities are not stopped at all be the fact that NAT hides the unused but open ports to the outside world and redirects the others.
Bullshit.
NAT does help against a certain sort of attack. Maybe only against this sort of attack. Fortunately, against the propably most common sort of attack you can't do anything about. (You can to something about infected websites: use a different browser).
Security is not binary, it's relative. NAT adds yet another bit of security for your computer. Can you feel save with NAT only? Hell, no! Can you feel saver than without NAT? Ask my Windows-using friends that hook their machines up to the net directly how many times they had to reinstall windows untill they could download the security fix from MS faster before they were hit again. Can't remember which worm it was (it khad a bug in its implementation and kept rebooting the machines, you'll know which one I mean). I'm not running Windows, so I didn't care. But fior them NAT would have been a good protection at the time.
Dismissing Kuiper objects just because they are "far" is kinda arbitrary. Size is a better criteria than distance.
The exclude Pluto not because it's too far out, but because of its size that wasn't sufficient to let Pluto clear its orbit of other debris. Pluto drifts in a cloud of rocks, none of which are large enough to dominate even their own orbit of debris. Give Pluto and Xena and possibly Gabrielle a billion years or so to form a larger body that ominates its orbit and call it a planet. Until then, let it be the only rock out there that was ever classified as a planet (because initially, it was suspected to be much larger) and that was discovered by an american.
As an architect: the "standard" system kicks the metric system's ass.
You're actually serious, aren't you? In what way exactly does it kick any ass? The metric systems covers lenght, volume, force... all consistent and based on one, single meter.
The "standard" (that is, the standard in the US and hardly anywhere else) is based on how many definitions for lenth etc.? How many pints of fuel are in a rocket? Would that be american pints or british dry pints or british liquid pints? How many inches go into a mile? Would that be a normal mile or a nautical one? How many ounces does a quibic yard or foot of water weigh at room temperature?
The so called (by you) "standard" system is a mess, historically grown and a nightmare to handle.
Pluto is / was the *only* planet discovered by americans. Now american astronomers fight for it to remain a planet. Never mind that any sensible definition of "planet" that includes Pluto will have to include hundreds, if not thousands of other ball-shaped rocks out in the Kuiper belt.
So what do we have? A nation for which to win (keeping the planet they discovered) is more important than to have a good result overall (a solid definition of "planet" that's usable for the forseeable future). Unfortunately, they're the strongest bullies on the playground and they don't mind pushing the other kids around. Let's hope they don't buy the majority they need to get "their" planet back.
Can't admit defeat with style, have to bitch around, looking silly and pissing everybody else off. (sighs)
Not the same: In Safari, you don't create a footprint of what you don't want recorded frst, just to later erase it together with the rest of your browsing history, it just doesn't write anything about your web-surfing onto the disk while in "private surfing" mode.
So you want to restrict yourself (and others?) to what is morally acceptable?
Fine, does that mean morally acceptable to you? Or to white christian americans? Or to iranian fundamentalists?
Freedom is a great thing. To even think about not doing something because others might use it to do something that some third party might or might not find acceptable - oh my god. Had we started off like this, we'd still be sitting in the trees, mating with the other chimps and feeling good about it. Which, compared to living in political correctness, might be better anyway.
The US has a legal system fit to start a new community in the wild, wild west, with nothing but a few decent people who don't know the law a bit. It's absolutely outdated and the source of a lot of ridicule from foreigners if compared to more modern legal systems.
In any decent, modern western country in the world except for the US, this would be long over.
A slow roll out of IE7 is in every ones best interests, yes even Microsofts - see the rest of this thread for the reasons.
So you're saying that the way Microsoft should have done it was to roll it out slowly, so that some of its paying customers can play guinea-pig for you and so that you don't have to do the tesing in the new browser yourself.
At the same time, you were going to not tell your customers about this, hoping that they wouldn't mind the "small umber" of users that cannot access the sites that they paid you for - until you could be bothered to find the time to do what you're being paid to do.
And all of this because Microsoft feels that a public beta along with tons of information about the upcoming changes a year in advance would suffice for people like you to do their job. How dare they!
No, how dare you collect maintenance fees for so many sites that you cannot even update them given a year's notice?
Sure you can use stored procedures. And sooner or later you might regret it:
- Your company merges with another company using a different DBMS and you're told the infrastructures should be merged.
- You business grows. While you can always add new application servers, J2EEs etc pretty easily, you'll have a hard time upgrading your DBMS over a certain point - and it's going to be more costly.
- Maybe something is twice as fast on the database compared to the application server. However, you will always have 1 database for all your application servers. So where will the bottleneck be? I'd rather have the operation take twice as long for each request - on each of my half dozend app-servers - than have it run twice as fast on my single database that's slowing down to a grinding halt while the app-servers are idling away. Bye bye minimum response time.
Give the Mighty Mouse by Apple a try. You can use the entire mose as mousebutton. I never use my thumb at all when I'm working with that mouse. On the downside, you still have to lift your index-finger to right-click. Give the user a mac and even that can be substituted by a control-click.
Wii for handicapped gamers?
on
Wii-mote In Action
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My wife sits in a wheelchair and can't move her hands or arms a lot. Fingers are OK. I'd have loved to buy a Nintendo, but as it seems, I'm going to wait until PS3 is out and then chose between that and the Xbox.
I really wanted to buy the Wii, but now it seems, that with my significant other unable to enjoy much of the games, it's not an option.
Can one service that's bordering on the fringe of being censored - but really OK - call for competitors to be censored? Can I call for microsoft.au to be censored (that would be possible under a "censor first, unblock later"-policy that would be needed for fast-changing domains.....so, nothing to see here, all just pre-election strong words, nothing that'll ever be formulated as a new law.
You want to by the OS at the prize that can only be achieved because the sake of the OS is tied to the profits from the sale of the hardware.
Would you pay 149,- plus whatever margin there is for apple on the average computer they sell? No? That's why they won't sell the OS without the hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so it's about the "extensions provided by Firefox"? No, it's explicitly about extensions not provided by firefox but strapped on by some mechanism devised by the extension's developer, be it Google, Yahoo, whomever.
Extensions provided by Firefox are downloaded via a secure connection - it's your Google-toolbar that comes unprotected.
So, if you don't have a clue, read the article. If you still have any doubt that you fully understand it, don't comment on it.
Ahm... no.
In your example, C's response dos not depend on what C receives from A. Also, B is magically able to simutanously send two messages (no serial device can do that).
If the responce (C -> A) is indeed independent from the first message (A -> C), then A and C can sart sending in parallel, thus eliminating the gain in speed. Also, you assume that the message sent from A to C is identical to the message sent from C to A. Assuming that, I'd offen the even more efficient startegy of using A -> A, C -> C, eliminating the need for B entirely.
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Minors or in fact direct relatives and spouses should never, ever be forced to testify in any case, civil or criminal, that involves their family.
It forces parents to lie to their children or to hide what they're doing. It puts minors in a situation, where they have to harm their parents in order to comply with the law.
I live in germany and protecting families from situations like these was elevated to a constitution-level right after WW2. Guess why.
Go and try to hunt down the b/w french 60's movie "la jettee" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056119/), shot entirely as a series of stills with the action being told by a narrator from the off. Way better than 12 Monkeys if you ask me (I saw them both in a small independent theater once, la jettee in french with english subtitles)
I know i'll lose karma, but I just can't resist:
Any justice system that allows for a daughter to be forced to testify against her mother is severely broken. The fact the daughter is only 10 makes it so totally wrong ins so many aspects...
Should a mother, if her 7 year old daughter calls out for her (or others of the family, toddlers and such) before looking after her family first shut down the computer lest someone who shares her household might see something that they might later be foced to spill up in court?
In Germany, first degree relatives cannot be forced to testify before any court. Period. No matter how guilty the accused and what the crime. We had this from 1939 to 1944, you still have it today.
* Open xorg.conf in text editor
* Go to google to find out what to do.
* Go to some forum to find out what to look for at google.
* Wait half a day.
* find a basic texteditor. Someone points you to vim.
* Change "nv" to "nvidia"
* find out how to handle vim.
* Save and reboot
Sooo hard?
Yes, so bloody hard. Much harder than you or I can imagine.
Also Ubuntu automatically updates your graphics drivers so you never have to keep tabs on if your using the latest drivers.
Oh wow, let's all hail Ubuntu for requiring this only once.
Oh well, there goes what little carma's left.
In other words: If you want to be successful, "do what your customers would want you to do" seems to be a pretty good policy. Now, could someone please go and tell the music industry, Microsoft etc. about this?
Now here's the interesting bit: The entity that owns most of Telekom's shares is - the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, the German gouvernment. The "Innenminister", the guy responsible for the justice system, police etc. was one of the kind of politicians who'd like to know everything about everyone for the sake of "security". (Who needs freedom if they are secure? Oh wait, that was prison.)
So, while by the law he could not force ISPs to retain that data, the biggest german ISP that just happened to be controlled by... him(!)... did so anyway, aiding law enforcement in trivial (and here: unfounded) cases with said data.
Unfortunately, even in germany, noone seems to bother about privacy anymore.
Too expensive to develop for free -> dead before it's even invented.
The interesting legal argument here is, that by pointing out that the case is (among other flaws) on a level of jurisdiction that surely can't be right, you voluntarily subject yourself to whatever that legal systems likes to come up with next.
The next interesting legal argument here is, that the judge seems not to be a judge, but a referee. His job is not to descide what's right and what's wrong, but to make sure the rules of the game are observed. They can't even descide that the case does not belong before them.
The last interesting legal argument is, that if the one who's sued doesn't appear, the one who sues gets all they want. Hell, they should have asked for a billion or two along with eevryone working for spamhaus and their children, relatives and frieds as slaves (for the next 7 generations). By the logic of the US legal system, they might just have won that as well.
Would I have appeared bofore them? And let the spammer force me and my non-profit organization to accept to be financially crippled by the spammer's for-profit ressources? No, I'd have shown them the finger as well (living in Europe and feeling there's a lot of nice areas for vacation that are on this side of the pool, so I don't really need to visit the US).
What you're describing here is not a CLI, it's a text-mode GUI. In fact, the example of usage for your "CLI-spreadsheet" is identical to how you handle Excel (oh, how that beast sucks!) in the GUI if you disregard the mouse.
In a command-line-interface spreadsheet, you'd just be typing X-Y-value - triples until (let's say) you hit ESCAPE. Then you're in "command mode". If you now enter ":p", you'll send the result to a printer. Maybe typing ":pp" will bring up a print preview as simple graphic displayed in fullscreen (VESA?) mode.
That would be a CLI-spreadsheet, and I'd like to see you working on that efficiently.
Bullshit.
NAT does help against a certain sort of attack. Maybe only against this sort of attack. Fortunately, against the propably most common sort of attack you can't do anything about. (You can to something about infected websites: use a different browser).
Security is not binary, it's relative. NAT adds yet another bit of security for your computer. Can you feel save with NAT only? Hell, no! Can you feel saver than without NAT? Ask my Windows-using friends that hook their machines up to the net directly how many times they had to reinstall windows untill they could download the security fix from MS faster before they were hit again. Can't remember which worm it was (it khad a bug in its implementation and kept rebooting the machines, you'll know which one I mean). I'm not running Windows, so I didn't care. But fior them NAT would have been a good protection at the time.
The exclude Pluto not because it's too far out, but because of its size that wasn't sufficient to let Pluto clear its orbit of other debris. Pluto drifts in a cloud of rocks, none of which are large enough to dominate even their own orbit of debris. Give Pluto and Xena and possibly Gabrielle a billion years or so to form a larger body that ominates its orbit and call it a planet. Until then, let it be the only rock out there that was ever classified as a planet (because initially, it was suspected to be much larger) and that was discovered by an american.
You're actually serious, aren't you? In what way exactly does it kick any ass? The metric systems covers lenght, volume, force... all consistent and based on one, single meter.
The "standard" (that is, the standard in the US and hardly anywhere else) is based on how many definitions for lenth etc.? How many pints of fuel are in a rocket? Would that be american pints or british dry pints or british liquid pints? How many inches go into a mile? Would that be a normal mile or a nautical one? How many ounces does a quibic yard or foot of water weigh at room temperature?
The so called (by you) "standard" system is a mess, historically grown and a nightmare to handle.
So what do we have? A nation for which to win (keeping the planet they discovered) is more important than to have a good result overall (a solid definition of "planet" that's usable for the forseeable future). Unfortunately, they're the strongest bullies on the playground and they don't mind pushing the other kids around. Let's hope they don't buy the majority they need to get "their" planet back.
Can't admit defeat with style, have to bitch around, looking silly and pissing everybody else off. (sighs)
Not the same: In Safari, you don't create a footprint of what you don't want recorded frst, just to later erase it together with the rest of your browsing history, it just doesn't write anything about your web-surfing onto the disk while in "private surfing" mode.
Fine, does that mean morally acceptable to you? Or to white christian americans? Or to iranian fundamentalists?
Freedom is a great thing. To even think about not doing something because others might use it to do something that some third party might or might not find acceptable - oh my god. Had we started off like this, we'd still be sitting in the trees, mating with the other chimps and feeling good about it. Which, compared to living in political correctness, might be better anyway.
The US has a legal system fit to start a new community in the wild, wild west, with nothing but a few decent people who don't know the law a bit. It's absolutely outdated and the source of a lot of ridicule from foreigners if compared to more modern legal systems.
In any decent, modern western country in the world except for the US, this would be long over.
So you're saying that the way Microsoft should have done it was to roll it out slowly, so that some of its paying customers can play guinea-pig for you and so that you don't have to do the tesing in the new browser yourself.
At the same time, you were going to not tell your customers about this, hoping that they wouldn't mind the "small umber" of users that cannot access the sites that they paid you for - until you could be bothered to find the time to do what you're being paid to do.
And all of this because Microsoft feels that a public beta along with tons of information about the upcoming changes a year in advance would suffice for people like you to do their job. How dare they!
No, how dare you collect maintenance fees for so many sites that you cannot even update them given a year's notice?
Sure you can use stored procedures. And sooner or later you might regret it:
- Your company merges with another company using a different DBMS and you're told the infrastructures should be merged.
- You business grows. While you can always add new application servers, J2EEs etc pretty easily, you'll have a hard time upgrading your DBMS over a certain point - and it's going to be more costly.
- Maybe something is twice as fast on the database compared to the application server. However, you will always have 1 database for all your application servers. So where will the bottleneck be? I'd rather have the operation take twice as long for each request - on each of my half dozend app-servers - than have it run twice as fast on my single database that's slowing down to a grinding halt while the app-servers are idling away. Bye bye minimum response time.
Give the Mighty Mouse by Apple a try. You can use the entire mose as mousebutton. I never use my thumb at all when I'm working with that mouse.
On the downside, you still have to lift your index-finger to right-click. Give the user a mac and even that can be substituted by a control-click.
I really wanted to buy the Wii, but now it seems, that with my significant other unable to enjoy much of the games, it's not an option.
So, why dont's they buy a Mac now? Has all the goodies Vista will copy... ahm... include and works right out of the box.
Oh, I forgot, it won't run on cheap harware, only on hardware that's priced at about the same level as a Dell.
Or is it because you can't run Duke Nukem Forever on a Mac? ;-)
Who is to censor the internet? By what criteria?
..so, nothing to see here, all just pre-election strong words, nothing that'll ever be formulated as a new law.
Can one service that's bordering on the fringe of being censored - but really OK - call for competitors to be censored? Can I call for microsoft.au to be censored (that would be possible under a "censor first, unblock later"-policy that would be needed for fast-changing domains...
You want to by the OS at the prize that can only be achieved because the sake of the OS is tied to the profits from the sale of the hardware.
Would you pay 149,- plus whatever margin there is for apple on the average computer they sell? No? That's why they won't sell the OS without the hardware.