The ATT versions of WM 6 I've used (2 different phones) do not include the Internet Sharing executable. It's easy enough to install, but it's not there by default.
If it were just the $50 card very few people would care about tethering. You're forgetting the extra $50+/month that it costs to use the card, since it's a whole second line of service, and it incapable of making phone calls.
Really? Have you tried this yourself? There aren't a lot NSFW hits in the images or links. And the few that do exist in the first 5 pages of results are only mildy NSFW. What exactly are you talking about?
Without commenting on whether or not children should be filtered, what has pornography in general got to do with addiction, or even "bad" for that matter? Do pictures of boobies on the computer really justify a comparison to a personal visit from a drug addict?
/ And you talk about other posters looking stupid.
I hate driving, and if I could afford a professional driver to move me about the country I would hire one. But I can't, so I'm forced to drive myself if I want to stay in business. When I'm on the rural interstate driving in a straight line with little traffic for 5 or 6 hours I'd greatly prefer "comfort" over "feedback", and there's little reason to prefer anything else. I'll grant you that there are some situations where I would prefer more feedback and control, but for 97+% of my travel I do not need it, and therefore I'm not willing to give up much comfort to get it for those limited and infrequent circumstances.
The speedometer tells you how fast you are moving. Your vision tells you what the current conditions are. We expect your brain to connect the two -- if it can't there's no amount of steering wheel shaking, noises or other "clues" that will be of any use in making the same determination.
There's no reason autopilot wouldn't work for a glider either. Even with the engine out the plane is still generally operable -- without power sufficient to run the autopilot you wouldn't have hydraulics, and it would be a 150 rock, not a 150 ton glider, no matter who was steering the thing.
Now selecting a non-airport landing site, or landing someplace without well-defined runways or approaches is another problem altogether.
But I don't see why we couldn't just have one or two ground-based remote pilots available for emergencies. In the case of a serious failure a senior non-pilot crew member could push a button to enable remote control (hence negating the possibility of a remote attack on the control systems), and someone sitting in a simulator in St. Louis could try to land the plane for them. It's not quite the same has having a pilot actually in the plane, but it's a lot cheaper, and you could have just a handful of very good pilots that actually spend a lot of time doing emergency landings and related training, rather than a bunch of mediocre (and I mean that in a statistical sense, not as a slight to pilots; most people are average) pilots who rarely perform emergency landings.
The fact that a business chooses to sell subsidized hardware does *not* give them the right to dictate what I can do with that hardware. They are welcome to conditionally subsidize the hardware, so that if I don't use it like they want they can remove the subsidy -- think early termination fee -- but simply choosing to sell at a lower price should not grant them any additional rights.
I'm willing to pay $200 for a phone. More importantly, I already own a compatible phone, and would be perfectly willing to just use that. But even if I bring my own phone, or sign a new contract and continue using an existing phone, I'm still forced to agree to an early termination fee -- exactly what valid purpose does that fee serve?
I use TPB simply as a means to reducing my locally CPU demands -- I have a valid subscription that entitles me to view (and time-shift) all the content I download via TPB, I just don't want to record or encode it locally. I realize that this is still technically a violation of copyright law, but deep down I really do think it's a valid use, that TPB is doing legitimate work in helping me, and that the law if flawed for trying to stop them.
Now I know there are lots of TPB users who do not have legitimate access to the content they are downloading, but their misuse of the service doesn't invalidate my use, or make the whole service illegitimate.
Sudo resolves programs to absolute paths when checking for specific program access -- you wouldn't grant access to 'rvi', it would be '/usr/bin/rvi', so your link wouldn't work (you can still type the relative path, it just has to resolve to the correct absolute path). Sudo also cleans the environment to prevent most similar attacks that might redirect to user-installed binaries or dynamic libraries.
You're assuming single-user systems. In multi-users systems it might be beneficial to prevent non-admin users from starting a web server -- if someone has access to gateway1.official-domain.com, which doesn't normally run a web server, you might want to prevent them from starting a web server and using the official-sounding hostname for fraudulent purposes.
There are still better solutions -- like port-binding ACLs, so you can say "only users X and Y and group Z can bind to port 80" -- but I think there is still value in protecting low-numbered ports.
Where did you get this information? 3DES uses the same algorithm as 1DES, just applied three times. In fact, one of the design goals of 3DES was that in EDE (encrypt-decrypt-encrypt) mode, using the same key for all three stages, it was functionally equivalent to 1DES, thus allowing you to use the same hardware for both 1DES and 3DES. 3DES has also be implemented in EEE models, which are no less or more secure than the EDE model.
The only thing 3DES leaves you "less secure" than is perhaps a naive assumption of complexity -- while you might expect 168 effective key bits you really only get about 112, due to the meet-in-the-middle attack. But 112 is still a lot more than the 56 effective bits you get with 1DES.
Actually you'll never see 2DES because it only adds a trivial amount of security -- with a meet-in-the-middle attack it only provide about 57 bits effective key length, a mere one bit more than 1DES. Even 3DES only provides 112 effective key bits due to the same attack.
But 2DES is not less secure the 1DES, it's just not enough better to bother. 3DES also has the advantage of a encrypt-decrypt-encrypt mode with a single key, which allows you to use the same hardware to do both 1DES and 3DES.
I agree that protecting the TV segment of their market is probably a good idea for protecting short-term profits. But it's clear that such a strategy is a long-term loser -- the very fact that there are non-TV markets now and weren't before suggests that they need a new business model to keep afloat.
Don't they want to make the most money possible over a period longer than a year or two? I mean, I know the ones that get paid in stock only care about the speculative value of the company, but seriously, don't any of the owners have an interest in long-term profitability? Or the mid-level management who doesn't have the opportunity to make money on the speculative value of the company, and might still want a job in 5 years?
And given that perspective I'm back to not understanding what they're doing at all -- you not only have to think from their point of view, but you have to intentionally reduce the scope of your thought to only including short-term profitability for this plan to make any sense.
First, you're acting as if Amazon is the first company to ship TTS software -- they're not. It's been built in to Apple's OSes since 1984, and commonly available in many other implementations for just about any OS that ever supported 8+ kHz audio output.
And god forbid that you might someday go blind and need a screen reader, which is a commercial product designed *explicitly* to read copyrighted worked aloud. Using your logic I can't imagine how Sony and others have avoided litigation for such devices -- at the very least blind persons should need a license to posses devices with such high infringement potential.
Finally, are you really suggesting that, because an output can be consistently reproduced given a certain stimulus, that it constitutes a lasting copy, and therefore a copyright violation if the original work is copyrighted? If so I'd suggest you turn off your monitor immediately, as your CRT is emitting this very web page -- a copyrighted work -- via AM radio, and will do so again anytime you view this page. (And I realize you may not have a CRT on at this moment, but it's hardly the only example of a transient copy being made, or even broadcast, in the course of the regular, private use of copyrighted material).
First, unless there's some sort of audio recording or public performance involved, the "copy" in question is likely exempt from copyright protection merely be being a transient copy created in the regular use of the copyrighted work, much as you are allowed to copy computer programs from disk to memory in order to run them.
Second, many types of private, personal use are exempted from copyright law under fair use provisions. You invented a rebuttal that included reproduction for third parties for commercial gain -- a more pertinent example would be "take a high-quality photo and store it in your photo album, never showing it to anyone else". But that isn't a very compelling example, so I can see why you wanted to distort the issue.
It's only worse at treating people that a sick AND poor. Rich sick people seem to have no complaints. Heck, the US seems to *import* rich sick people, which suggests the system is actually pretty good at caring for sick people, at least if they can afford it.
No, *encrypted* doesn't mean *authenticated*. The fact that the browsers fail to make this distinction is no excuse for treating encrypted but unauthenticated connections as inferior to connections with neither encryption nor authentication. Having an encrypted, unauthenticated connection is strictly more secure than not using SSL at all -- even in a worst-case scenario when you're subject to a MitM attack, your traffic is still only readable by the attacker, rather than by everyone along the transit path.
There are two problems here. First, browsers should treat non-encrypted traffic as the special state -- putting up special indicators when the connection is not secure, rather than the status quo of treating SSL-wrapped communications as a special state. I understand why we didn't start with SSL as the default 15 years ago, but we could fix that now. Among other things, this would fix the SSL-strip attacks that have recently been publicized.
Second, they need to stop treating security as a binary state -- security is not an on/off proposition, nor do all activities require the same level of security, and treating it as such is ultimately detrimental. Yes, users are stupid, but lying to them about the security of their connections is not useful in making them smarter, and it's very limiting to any user that *could* be taught how to evaluate the security of their connection.
Re:looks like it still loses history
on
BASH 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Which is fine while the session is open, and I don't think anyone would want to change that.
But when you close both sessions, it would be nice if both of them made it into the history file -- otherwise when you come back tomorrow and start a third session you can only use your history for one of the two tasks (and you have to try pretty hard to even get to choose which of the two you get).
Call me when your real-world JVM isn't written in C. Until then you're just shifting the burden of resource management to someone else, and you could do that just as easily with C libraries as you could with Java libraries.
That's not a case of the legal meaning of words differing from common use, that's just an intentional misreading of the interstate commerce clause to justify the power congress wanted to grab. It's not that anyone actually believes it's genuinely constitutional, it's just that they want the power, no one is stopping them from taking it, and congress doesn't think they can, or doesn't want to bother, starting the process of changing the constitution to make their actions legal.
Slashdot Mirror
The ATT versions of WM 6 I've used (2 different phones) do not include the Internet Sharing executable. It's easy enough to install, but it's not there by default.
If it were just the $50 card very few people would care about tethering. You're forgetting the extra $50+/month that it costs to use the card, since it's a whole second line of service, and it incapable of making phone calls.
You fail SI units. ms is milliseconds, not meters * seconds.
/ Should have checked one more time apparently
Really? Have you tried this yourself? There aren't a lot NSFW hits in the images or links. And the few that do exist in the first 5 pages of results are only mildy NSFW. What exactly are you talking about?
Without commenting on whether or not children should be filtered, what has pornography in general got to do with addiction, or even "bad" for that matter? Do pictures of boobies on the computer really justify a comparison to a personal visit from a drug addict?
/ And you talk about other posters looking stupid.
I hate driving, and if I could afford a professional driver to move me about the country I would hire one. But I can't, so I'm forced to drive myself if I want to stay in business. When I'm on the rural interstate driving in a straight line with little traffic for 5 or 6 hours I'd greatly prefer "comfort" over "feedback", and there's little reason to prefer anything else. I'll grant you that there are some situations where I would prefer more feedback and control, but for 97+% of my travel I do not need it, and therefore I'm not willing to give up much comfort to get it for those limited and infrequent circumstances.
The speedometer tells you how fast you are moving. Your vision tells you what the current conditions are. We expect your brain to connect the two -- if it can't there's no amount of steering wheel shaking, noises or other "clues" that will be of any use in making the same determination.
There's no reason autopilot wouldn't work for a glider either. Even with the engine out the plane is still generally operable -- without power sufficient to run the autopilot you wouldn't have hydraulics, and it would be a 150 rock, not a 150 ton glider, no matter who was steering the thing.
Now selecting a non-airport landing site, or landing someplace without well-defined runways or approaches is another problem altogether.
But I don't see why we couldn't just have one or two ground-based remote pilots available for emergencies. In the case of a serious failure a senior non-pilot crew member could push a button to enable remote control (hence negating the possibility of a remote attack on the control systems), and someone sitting in a simulator in St. Louis could try to land the plane for them. It's not quite the same has having a pilot actually in the plane, but it's a lot cheaper, and you could have just a handful of very good pilots that actually spend a lot of time doing emergency landings and related training, rather than a bunch of mediocre (and I mean that in a statistical sense, not as a slight to pilots; most people are average) pilots who rarely perform emergency landings.
The fact that a business chooses to sell subsidized hardware does *not* give them the right to dictate what I can do with that hardware. They are welcome to conditionally subsidize the hardware, so that if I don't use it like they want they can remove the subsidy -- think early termination fee -- but simply choosing to sell at a lower price should not grant them any additional rights.
I'm willing to pay $200 for a phone. More importantly, I already own a compatible phone, and would be perfectly willing to just use that. But even if I bring my own phone, or sign a new contract and continue using an existing phone, I'm still forced to agree to an early termination fee -- exactly what valid purpose does that fee serve?
Good. I'm not the only one who noticed that ST2 and ST10 had the same plot.
I use TPB simply as a means to reducing my locally CPU demands -- I have a valid subscription that entitles me to view (and time-shift) all the content I download via TPB, I just don't want to record or encode it locally. I realize that this is still technically a violation of copyright law, but deep down I really do think it's a valid use, that TPB is doing legitimate work in helping me, and that the law if flawed for trying to stop them.
Now I know there are lots of TPB users who do not have legitimate access to the content they are downloading, but their misuse of the service doesn't invalidate my use, or make the whole service illegitimate.
Sudo resolves programs to absolute paths when checking for specific program access -- you wouldn't grant access to 'rvi', it would be '/usr/bin/rvi', so your link wouldn't work (you can still type the relative path, it just has to resolve to the correct absolute path). Sudo also cleans the environment to prevent most similar attacks that might redirect to user-installed binaries or dynamic libraries.
You're assuming single-user systems. In multi-users systems it might be beneficial to prevent non-admin users from starting a web server -- if someone has access to gateway1.official-domain.com, which doesn't normally run a web server, you might want to prevent them from starting a web server and using the official-sounding hostname for fraudulent purposes.
There are still better solutions -- like port-binding ACLs, so you can say "only users X and Y and group Z can bind to port 80" -- but I think there is still value in protecting low-numbered ports.
Where did you get this information? 3DES uses the same algorithm as 1DES, just applied three times. In fact, one of the design goals of 3DES was that in EDE (encrypt-decrypt-encrypt) mode, using the same key for all three stages, it was functionally equivalent to 1DES, thus allowing you to use the same hardware for both 1DES and 3DES. 3DES has also be implemented in EEE models, which are no less or more secure than the EDE model.
The only thing 3DES leaves you "less secure" than is perhaps a naive assumption of complexity -- while you might expect 168 effective key bits you really only get about 112, due to the meet-in-the-middle attack. But 112 is still a lot more than the 56 effective bits you get with 1DES.
Actually you'll never see 2DES because it only adds a trivial amount of security -- with a meet-in-the-middle attack it only provide about 57 bits effective key length, a mere one bit more than 1DES. Even 3DES only provides 112 effective key bits due to the same attack.
But 2DES is not less secure the 1DES, it's just not enough better to bother. 3DES also has the advantage of a encrypt-decrypt-encrypt mode with a single key, which allows you to use the same hardware to do both 1DES and 3DES.
I agree that protecting the TV segment of their market is probably a good idea for protecting short-term profits. But it's clear that such a strategy is a long-term loser -- the very fact that there are non-TV markets now and weren't before suggests that they need a new business model to keep afloat.
Don't they want to make the most money possible over a period longer than a year or two? I mean, I know the ones that get paid in stock only care about the speculative value of the company, but seriously, don't any of the owners have an interest in long-term profitability? Or the mid-level management who doesn't have the opportunity to make money on the speculative value of the company, and might still want a job in 5 years?
And given that perspective I'm back to not understanding what they're doing at all -- you not only have to think from their point of view, but you have to intentionally reduce the scope of your thought to only including short-term profitability for this plan to make any sense.
First, you're acting as if Amazon is the first company to ship TTS software -- they're not. It's been built in to Apple's OSes since 1984, and commonly available in many other implementations for just about any OS that ever supported 8+ kHz audio output.
And god forbid that you might someday go blind and need a screen reader, which is a commercial product designed *explicitly* to read copyrighted worked aloud. Using your logic I can't imagine how Sony and others have avoided litigation for such devices -- at the very least blind persons should need a license to posses devices with such high infringement potential.
Finally, are you really suggesting that, because an output can be consistently reproduced given a certain stimulus, that it constitutes a lasting copy, and therefore a copyright violation if the original work is copyrighted? If so I'd suggest you turn off your monitor immediately, as your CRT is emitting this very web page -- a copyrighted work -- via AM radio, and will do so again anytime you view this page. (And I realize you may not have a CRT on at this moment, but it's hardly the only example of a transient copy being made, or even broadcast, in the course of the regular, private use of copyrighted material).
First, unless there's some sort of audio recording or public performance involved, the "copy" in question is likely exempt from copyright protection merely be being a transient copy created in the regular use of the copyrighted work, much as you are allowed to copy computer programs from disk to memory in order to run them.
Second, many types of private, personal use are exempted from copyright law under fair use provisions. You invented a rebuttal that included reproduction for third parties for commercial gain -- a more pertinent example would be "take a high-quality photo and store it in your photo album, never showing it to anyone else". But that isn't a very compelling example, so I can see why you wanted to distort the issue.
I want security through obscurity.
I don't want to rely on obscurity exclusively, but it's certainly a valuable security tool I wouldn't want to give up unnecessarily.
It's only worse at treating people that a sick AND poor. Rich sick people seem to have no complaints. Heck, the US seems to *import* rich sick people, which suggests the system is actually pretty good at caring for sick people, at least if they can afford it.
No, *encrypted* doesn't mean *authenticated*. The fact that the browsers fail to make this distinction is no excuse for treating encrypted but unauthenticated connections as inferior to connections with neither encryption nor authentication. Having an encrypted, unauthenticated connection is strictly more secure than not using SSL at all -- even in a worst-case scenario when you're subject to a MitM attack, your traffic is still only readable by the attacker, rather than by everyone along the transit path.
There are two problems here. First, browsers should treat non-encrypted traffic as the special state -- putting up special indicators when the connection is not secure, rather than the status quo of treating SSL-wrapped communications as a special state. I understand why we didn't start with SSL as the default 15 years ago, but we could fix that now. Among other things, this would fix the SSL-strip attacks that have recently been publicized.
Second, they need to stop treating security as a binary state -- security is not an on/off proposition, nor do all activities require the same level of security, and treating it as such is ultimately detrimental. Yes, users are stupid, but lying to them about the security of their connections is not useful in making them smarter, and it's very limiting to any user that *could* be taught how to evaluate the security of their connection.
Which is fine while the session is open, and I don't think anyone would want to change that.
But when you close both sessions, it would be nice if both of them made it into the history file -- otherwise when you come back tomorrow and start a third session you can only use your history for one of the two tasks (and you have to try pretty hard to even get to choose which of the two you get).
Call me when your real-world JVM isn't written in C. Until then you're just shifting the burden of resource management to someone else, and you could do that just as easily with C libraries as you could with Java libraries.
That's not a case of the legal meaning of words differing from common use, that's just an intentional misreading of the interstate commerce clause to justify the power congress wanted to grab. It's not that anyone actually believes it's genuinely constitutional, it's just that they want the power, no one is stopping them from taking it, and congress doesn't think they can, or doesn't want to bother, starting the process of changing the constitution to make their actions legal.