Laws tend to get more complex over time, not less. I get the clear idea from the text that the authors would like to be able to hit up companies for fines at will, and this law will allow them to do it.
I've read a lot of this regulation and I think it's probably impossible to comply with. It's also very light on technical guidance for compliance. There are only a few passing mentions of encryption and nothing at all about particular standards. In other words, there is no specific requirement to encrypt data in transit or at rest, but rather a vague suggestion that encryption in general might be a good idea. On the other hand, with respect the right to be forgotten, which is really a right to request erasure, it's unclear whether deleting keys to encrypted data constitutes erasure. It could be read to require actually writing over all the copies of the bits.
The article doesn't claim that web apps are as good as native. It claims that standards are advancing rapidly and that they *will* be as good as native, at which point the benefits of the web become compelling.
no, that's not what FFOS is. FFOS takes web sites and packages them up as apps that are delivered through a store and they run locally on the device, something like Cordova apps.
The story (and I ought to know because I wrote it) discusses actual mobile web sites, e.g.. m.slashdot.org as opposed to a Slashdot app. It's not hard to give the app experience by putting an icon on the screen and running the browser full-screen
How do they insulate themselves from generic competition by stopping sales of their own brand name? If it's off-patent and there's demand then generic companies will offer it. If there's a sufficient advantage to the new one then doctors will order it in spite of the cost.
(This is the graph that has been all shaft and no blade for the last 12 years or so.)
Didn't the "overwhelming scientific consensus" believe in that not too long ago?
Furthermore, the Internet as we know it today would not be able to function without CDNs. The only people who would be empowered would be those conducting DDOS attacks.
The "part I know" stuff shows up later in the test (Question 5) in a much clearer context. It looks to me as if this is a phrasing that schools are expected to teach. That said, the test doesn't seem to me to be written at a first grade level
Governments are supposed to have the ability to compel disclosure of confidential information, subject to legal protections. If you don't like the Snowden example, consider a less controversial criminal example, like a kidnapping in process. The point is that the 4th amendment allows for reasonable searches and seizures. Claiming that all searches and seizures are attacks is to deny the legitimacy of even uncontroversial law enforcement. Incidentally, even Lavabit complied with other government requests for data.
It's not all their Federal work. It's all work for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is the group implementing and managing healthcare.gov.
Not that I'm all that worried about this attack, but the confirmation dialog would have to present some identifying information about the device, so the approval could probably be social-engineered.
Like I said, it's on Windows 8. On Windows 7 SmartScreen only has reputation on sites, not files.
A file that Microsoft has never seen before can rightfully be judged as suspicious. If it's something you know is OK, for instance because you compiled the program, then you know more than they do.
I think you overstate the point, but has it ever been easy to get a job as a contemptuous 19 year old college dropout? That's the person who would have a hard time getting a job now.
Slashdot Mirror
Laws tend to get more complex over time, not less. I get the clear idea from the text that the authors would like to be able to hit up companies for fines at will, and this law will allow them to do it.
I've read a lot of this regulation and I think it's probably impossible to comply with. It's also very light on technical guidance for compliance. There are only a few passing mentions of encryption and nothing at all about particular standards. In other words, there is no specific requirement to encrypt data in transit or at rest, but rather a vague suggestion that encryption in general might be a good idea. On the other hand, with respect the right to be forgotten, which is really a right to request erasure, it's unclear whether deleting keys to encrypted data constitutes erasure. It could be read to require actually writing over all the copies of the bits.
Yes, better to do the right thing in the end. Even better to do the right thing to begin with. It's a good reason to be leery of him.
Newsweek: Google and Microsoft Back Apple on Encryption Battle With FBI
fuck you
The article doesn't claim that web apps are as good as native. It claims that standards are advancing rapidly and that they *will* be as good as native, at which point the benefits of the web become compelling.
no, that's not what FFOS is. FFOS takes web sites and packages them up as apps that are delivered through a store and they run locally on the device, something like Cordova apps. The story (and I ought to know because I wrote it) discusses actual mobile web sites, e.g.. m.slashdot.org as opposed to a Slashdot app. It's not hard to give the app experience by putting an icon on the screen and running the browser full-screen
I might be able to see it through the blizzard here
How do they insulate themselves from generic competition by stopping sales of their own brand name? If it's off-patent and there's demand then generic companies will offer it. If there's a sufficient advantage to the new one then doctors will order it in spite of the cost.
If he thinks he can make it successful as a commercial enterprise, why shouldn't he?
(This is the graph that has been all shaft and no blade for the last 12 years or so.) Didn't the "overwhelming scientific consensus" believe in that not too long ago?
I think this has been known for many decades
Nothing comes *from* your network. It comes from Apple directly to the Comcast local offices and there to the last mile.
Private lines from Apple to Comcast endpoints, just like what Akamai, etc do
Furthermore, the Internet as we know it today would not be able to function without CDNs. The only people who would be empowered would be those conducting DDOS attacks.
(nt)
The "part I know" stuff shows up later in the test (Question 5) in a much clearer context. It looks to me as if this is a phrasing that schools are expected to teach. That said, the test doesn't seem to me to be written at a first grade level
Governments are supposed to have the ability to compel disclosure of confidential information, subject to legal protections. If you don't like the Snowden example, consider a less controversial criminal example, like a kidnapping in process. The point is that the 4th amendment allows for reasonable searches and seizures. Claiming that all searches and seizures are attacks is to deny the legitimacy of even uncontroversial law enforcement. Incidentally, even Lavabit complied with other government requests for data.
I dug into it some more, and I'm pretty sure that some of that money is for other work done for Medicare
It's not all their Federal work. It's all work for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is the group implementing and managing healthcare.gov.
Not that I'm all that worried about this attack, but the confirmation dialog would have to present some identifying information about the device, so the approval could probably be social-engineered.
Right, if you distribute software then you should sign the files and the reputation of the file will follow the reputation of the key.
Like I said, it's on Windows 8. On Windows 7 SmartScreen only has reputation on sites, not files. A file that Microsoft has never seen before can rightfully be judged as suspicious. If it's something you know is OK, for instance because you compiled the program, then you know more than they do.
It's only in Windows 8, but Microsoft does the same thing.
I think you overstate the point, but has it ever been easy to get a job as a contemptuous 19 year old college dropout? That's the person who would have a hard time getting a job now.