Google have gone through fairly considerable pain and implemented quite strict sandboxing techniques for Chrome, to contain any problems in the renderer.
You said it. What you have in the plugin is the rendering engine, not the sandbox afaik. For that, IE sandbox should be used, the one that they claim that already protects from renderer bugs and plugins anyway.
If IE security is already zero, how this could be less secure? putting it into negative security numbers?
First, the plugin goes from the last "in theory" secure IE8, to the "come to hack me, im open" IE6. Is definitely a security improvement for older IE versions. For IE8, is debatable or future could tell if is more or less secure than the built-in renderer, but so far, history hasn't been on IE side regarding security.
Also is pretty specific. A very small percent of IE users will install the plugin (mostly wave beta testers mostly that refuse to give up IE?), probably most will have installed Chrome or Firefox. Doing a full site and trying to get there a lot of people to activate the plugin with a specific header tag (so it can't be as easily triggered as some maybe old IE renderer security bugs) and then putting the exploit is a bit doing it taking the long road, specially if you take into account how frequently are tried to exploit IE vulnerabilities and how much aggressive is google regarding security patches (not sure if the plugin use the same update channel than the browser, i.e.).
Also is interesting that they complain about this plugin that could improve their security overall, and don't do it for other plugins that definately lower their security, but that must be used to access (pretty much like the chrome frame plugin) to some essential content, like i.e. flash or acrobat (and odds are pretty high that silverlight too).
Buy our service or the ManBearPig will catch you. We are more secure because you don't know how much insecure are us, but there was an specific case where the dns used by the vast majority of internet had a (fixed) vulnerability under special circunstances in certain moment.
Maybe he tries to point that other things should not be copyrightable neither. How much different is that from i.e. pharmaceutic recipes? Probably there are a lot of areas that have copyrights over things that are in essence pretty similar to cooking recipes.
Getting an approval by local laws saying that local laws don't apply? Looks pretty much to the liar paradox. Or local laws (as in US country laws, like the ones that forbids exporting crypto) don't apply or apply (like the US country laws that gives the 1st amendment),
If you want to push that open source projects, developed with the cooperation from people from all countries are not restricted to the laws of a single country, thats ok, no need to put a country-specific 1st amendment to justify it. Else the exporting crypto restrictions could be applied but was made an exception in hat case.
The ones that started the problem, from workers of the NSA all up to G.W.Bush, passing for all in the congress that voted for that law, are accountable in any way for that privacy violations?
Probably those telcos aren't exactly saints, but here the blame is put in the wrong target.
g) The ones that decided to put windows connected with internet and managed by people with no concepts in security in computers with sensible information
in a way, they are still here, today. Some of them evolved to i.e. our moderns birds. Some of the old OSs are still here, in a way or another. Think in CP/M, on which was based DOS, over it was built Windows'95, and probably part of it ended in Windows NT and keep that way all up to Windows 7 perhaps. The same could be said about old versions of current operating systems, like i.e. Linux 0.9, maybe there is no running instance of it, but on it was built all the rest.
What was the last popular operating system built totally from scratch?
Back then yes, was THAT good. The desktop (WPS) was simply amazing, HPFS had features that would be nice to see in main linux filesystems (was so aggresive with putting files in contiguous blocks that a defrag script back then just renamed forth and back all files to do the work), and had good management of memory and multitasking. In a modern pc, with current memory/clock speeds, if you manage that it work with all the hardware, would fly. Still today, there is some software maintained for it (i think that i.e. Opera 10 have an OS/2 version). If it (or some of the good portions of it, i.e. the wps) would have been released like 10 years ago in public domain/open source/etc) you probably would be using a derivative of it right now.
Ok, so for the next planet the ship must be here for 3 years, and the next one stay there for other 14. This kind of trip could seriously cut the fuel needed for a mission, but maybe raise a lot the time for it, till the moment the planets are in the right position. The tech could be here today, but the launch must be delayed till next century.
The ability of the brain to find a pattern in some stimuli and built "on the fly" a new sense of it is simply amazing, and opens the possibility of new senses for all, even if is as a fashion trend.
But mass deployment must be aware that it also takes place, or adds "noise", to at least a region of our actual existing senses, information that could have been useful or needed and now become blurred by this artificial input. And there is of course the physical impact of it in that area. Picking the right place for mapping a new sense will be a delicate topic for this.
Wonder what kind of new senses will be nice to add this way, or if the eyes will keep being the typical overloaded organ putting it all in i.e. augumented reality devices like this ones
30 years ago could had been argumented something pretty similar regarding why to use mouse if required too little energy to use a keyboard. Taking out your hands out of the keyboard to do something around? No way.
Is another input device, with its own strong areas and weak ones, like mouse. Is not only touch, but also multitouch what makes them worth ( and that kind of input is not so trivial with mouse or keyboard ).
People are the ultimate vulnerability. And that goes from applying the same solution for all problems (that desktop environment looks nice for personal trusted use, lets use it to let it run for hundreds of untrusted ones), to opening attachments, to confusing authority with knowledge (i am the boss and want full access to internet and all the corporate servers) to admins and thousands of etcs.
The security suite to solve it is education and common sense. One takes too long to get, while the other could take forever for some. How to raise a culture on security to "normal" people?
You may have time to read this Windows 7 review while doing that and deciding if you really want to finish that installation... unless can't browse internet while upgrading windows.
I have a somewhat opposite experience. Once even my connection dropped and got the upgrade half done. Thinking that was over, rebooted to the new system and continued working normally for a week. As noted that not everything looked as should be in the new system, relaunched the upgrade, told me that had still things to download and finish and completed the upgrade. The system was usable most of the time while doing the upgrade, just a bit busy in the bandwidth part when downloading the packages and in the disk one when installing them.
If predicting a panic could cause a panic to not occur, I think I'll take that. Under what circumstances would panic be desirable?
Is not the act of predicting, but that you are aware of it. There are no surprises when you already know what will happen.
If the models predict that will be panic in the market and none that knows that prediction do something there, probably would happen (if the model is right, of course). But if you try to take advantage of that (buying cheap, i.e.) you risk to invalidate your prediction (and there is the "others could be modelling too" factor)
If they dont do it, then the model will not be exact, so what it will predict could or not happen.
In soviet russia this model would maybe work, but in capitalistic america as soon as this would-be model predicts that something will happen, a lot will try to get profit from that, invalidating it.
Maybe more important, there arent a single person or organization trying to predicts how markets will behave, probably a lot are, all with more or less the same starting data, and probably reaching the same conclusions (specially if none takes into account that several will act based on those predictions, because, as you say, would be extremely complex).
I suppose that one of the definitions of "useless" is something that stop working as soon you try to really use it (more or less like Windows), well, this kind of model could fall into that definition.
The human behaviour they should put into those models arent panic or riots, but what humans do when know what those models predict. Thats the biggest problem about predicting what people will do, what if that people know that prediction?
That was the problem, too much people "knowing" what will happen, acting in a big way, and of course, failing because those predictions didnt included that behaviour.
Random ports and encryptions is what is usually easier to get blocked at your network perimeter. But is not so easy to block google at port 80, even with clear text content, probably someone in your internal network would want to use it for legitimate reasons.
Would not be so surprised that RSSs or the pages itself from blogger (or other massive blog hosting sites) could be used for this, or ad hoc mailing lists. In fact, anything that could be put in internet by someone potentially anonymous and accessed automatically by thousands/millons of hosts without raising normal alarms, and better if is not limited to one easily blocked ip address,
Why do one thing if you could take the opportunity to do 3? Mixing capturing electricity from this source and bringing it down by wires, with an spatial elevator, and maybe more energy orbital getting "traditional" solar energy. This could even turn profitable in the middle term building a spatial elevator
Slashdot Mirror
Google have gone through fairly considerable pain and implemented quite strict sandboxing techniques for Chrome, to contain any problems in the renderer.
You said it. What you have in the plugin is the rendering engine, not the sandbox afaik. For that, IE sandbox should be used, the one that they claim that already protects from renderer bugs and plugins anyway.
If IE security is already zero, how this could be less secure? putting it into negative security numbers?
First, the plugin goes from the last "in theory" secure IE8, to the "come to hack me, im open" IE6. Is definitely a security improvement for older IE versions. For IE8, is debatable or future could tell if is more or less secure than the built-in renderer, but so far, history hasn't been on IE side regarding security.
Also is pretty specific. A very small percent of IE users will install the plugin (mostly wave beta testers mostly that refuse to give up IE?), probably most will have installed Chrome or Firefox. Doing a full site and trying to get there a lot of people to activate the plugin with a specific header tag (so it can't be as easily triggered as some maybe old IE renderer security bugs) and then putting the exploit is a bit doing it taking the long road, specially if you take into account how frequently are tried to exploit IE vulnerabilities and how much aggressive is google regarding security patches (not sure if the plugin use the same update channel than the browser, i.e.).
Also is interesting that they complain about this plugin that could improve their security overall, and don't do it for other plugins that definately lower their security, but that must be used to access (pretty much like the chrome frame plugin) to some essential content, like i.e. flash or acrobat (and odds are pretty high that silverlight too).
Buy our service or the ManBearPig will catch you. We are more secure because you don't know how much insecure are us, but there was an specific case where the dns used by the vast majority of internet had a (fixed) vulnerability under special circunstances in certain moment.
Now we all owe millons to Microsoft
"Free" have a commercial stigma, specially if you put all meanings in that word.
Maybe he tries to point that other things should not be copyrightable neither. How much different is that from i.e. pharmaceutic recipes? Probably there are a lot of areas that have copyrights over things that are in essence pretty similar to cooking recipes.
With a bit of luck, slashdotting them could get Global Warming as side effect. Looks like a good terrorist/supervillain/evil scientist plot.
That fish that you are eating is watching you... and feeling it.
The moon is a frigid mistress
Getting an approval by local laws saying that local laws don't apply? Looks pretty much to the liar paradox. Or local laws (as in US country laws, like the ones that forbids exporting crypto) don't apply or apply (like the US country laws that gives the 1st amendment),
If you want to push that open source projects, developed with the cooperation from people from all countries are not restricted to the laws of a single country, thats ok, no need to put a country-specific 1st amendment to justify it. Else the exporting crypto restrictions could be applied but was made an exception in hat case.
The ones that started the problem, from workers of the NSA all up to G.W.Bush, passing for all in the congress that voted for that law, are accountable in any way for that privacy violations?
Probably those telcos aren't exactly saints, but here the blame is put in the wrong target.
You are missing a few alternatives
f) The one that wrote the spyware
g) The ones that decided to put windows connected with internet and managed by people with no concepts in security in computers with sensible information
h) Bill Gates
i) Canada (when in doubt, blame Canada)
in a way, they are still here, today. Some of them evolved to i.e. our moderns birds. Some of the old OSs are still here, in a way or another. Think in CP/M, on which was based DOS, over it was built Windows'95, and probably part of it ended in Windows NT and keep that way all up to Windows 7 perhaps. The same could be said about old versions of current operating systems, like i.e. Linux 0.9, maybe there is no running instance of it, but on it was built all the rest.
What was the last popular operating system built totally from scratch?
Back then yes, was THAT good. The desktop (WPS) was simply amazing, HPFS had features that would be nice to see in main linux filesystems (was so aggresive with putting files in contiguous blocks that a defrag script back then just renamed forth and back all files to do the work), and had good management of memory and multitasking. In a modern pc, with current memory/clock speeds, if you manage that it work with all the hardware, would fly. Still today, there is some software maintained for it (i think that i.e. Opera 10 have an OS/2 version). If it (or some of the good portions of it, i.e. the wps) would have been released like 10 years ago in public domain/open source/etc) you probably would be using a derivative of it right now.
Ok, so for the next planet the ship must be here for 3 years, and the next one stay there for other 14. This kind of trip could seriously cut the fuel needed for a mission, but maybe raise a lot the time for it, till the moment the planets are in the right position. The tech could be here today, but the launch must be delayed till next century.
The ability of the brain to find a pattern in some stimuli and built "on the fly" a new sense of it is simply amazing, and opens the possibility of new senses for all, even if is as a fashion trend.
But mass deployment must be aware that it also takes place, or adds "noise", to at least a region of our actual existing senses, information that could have been useful or needed and now become blurred by this artificial input. And there is of course the physical impact of it in that area. Picking the right place for mapping a new sense will be a delicate topic for this.
Wonder what kind of new senses will be nice to add this way, or if the eyes will keep being the typical overloaded organ putting it all in i.e. augumented reality devices like this ones
30 years ago could had been argumented something pretty similar regarding why to use mouse if required too little energy to use a keyboard. Taking out your hands out of the keyboard to do something around? No way.
Is another input device, with its own strong areas and weak ones, like mouse. Is not only touch, but also multitouch what makes them worth ( and that kind of input is not so trivial with mouse or keyboard ).
People are the ultimate vulnerability. And that goes from applying the same solution for all problems (that desktop environment looks nice for personal trusted use, lets use it to let it run for hundreds of untrusted ones), to opening attachments, to confusing authority with knowledge (i am the boss and want full access to internet and all the corporate servers) to admins and thousands of etcs.
The security suite to solve it is education and common sense. One takes too long to get, while the other could take forever for some. How to raise a culture on security to "normal" people?
You may have time to read this Windows 7 review while doing that and deciding if you really want to finish that installation... unless can't browse internet while upgrading windows.
I have a somewhat opposite experience. Once even my connection dropped and got the upgrade half done. Thinking that was over, rebooted to the new system and continued working normally for a week. As noted that not everything looked as should be in the new system, relaunched the upgrade, told me that had still things to download and finish and completed the upgrade. The system was usable most of the time while doing the upgrade, just a bit busy in the bandwidth part when downloading the packages and in the disk one when installing them.
If predicting a panic could cause a panic to not occur, I think I'll take that. Under what circumstances would panic be desirable?
Is not the act of predicting, but that you are aware of it. There are no surprises when you already know what will happen.
If the models predict that will be panic in the market and none that knows that prediction do something there, probably would happen (if the model is right, of course). But if you try to take advantage of that (buying cheap, i.e.) you risk to invalidate your prediction (and there is the "others could be modelling too" factor)
If they dont do it, then the model will not be exact, so what it will predict could or not happen.
In soviet russia this model would maybe work, but in capitalistic america as soon as this would-be model predicts that something will happen, a lot will try to get profit from that, invalidating it.
Maybe more important, there arent a single person or organization trying to predicts how markets will behave, probably a lot are, all with more or less the same starting data, and probably reaching the same conclusions (specially if none takes into account that several will act based on those predictions, because, as you say, would be extremely complex).
I suppose that one of the definitions of "useless" is something that stop working as soon you try to really use it (more or less like Windows), well, this kind of model could fall into that definition.
The human behaviour they should put into those models arent panic or riots, but what humans do when know what those models predict. Thats the biggest problem about predicting what people will do, what if that people know that prediction?
That was the problem, too much people "knowing" what will happen, acting in a big way, and of course, failing because those predictions didnt included that behaviour.
Random ports and encryptions is what is usually easier to get blocked at your network perimeter. But is not so easy to block google at port 80, even with clear text content, probably someone in your internal network would want to use it for legitimate reasons.
Would not be so surprised that RSSs or the pages itself from blogger (or other massive blog hosting sites) could be used for this, or ad hoc mailing lists. In fact, anything that could be put in internet by someone potentially anonymous and accessed automatically by thousands/millons of hosts without raising normal alarms, and better if is not limited to one easily blocked ip address,
Why do one thing if you could take the opportunity to do 3? Mixing capturing electricity from this source and bringing it down by wires, with an spatial elevator, and maybe more energy orbital getting "traditional" solar energy. This could even turn profitable in the middle term building a spatial elevator