In fact, they charge money for a device making light, who needs that? We have a fusion reactor in the center of our solar system that delivers us with light. So why pay money for something you get for free? (Sorry had to make this stupid comparison)
Its about the marketing, not about the hard numbers. Do the people buy apple hardware because there is no cheaper alternative, or the storage-capacity is the cheapest?
When you buy a device, you not just buy the specs, you purchase a bunch of things, as the brand, the design, or the feeling.
If you have the time and money you use transistors and cables to build your own macro-sized AES encrypting typewriter. You can check all parts yourself. You can send the result per mail, or even scan it and send it to the recipient with E-Mail.
The large corporations could employ secretaries that all day do nothing else than handle these machines. Their communications would be perfectly secure! This will kill unemployment!
The W3C should standardize the way 'End-to-End' communicates with the website. It has a huge potential, not just for mail but also for chat or with WebRTC.
Contrary to widely held popular belief (especially among marketing types), there's not such thing as "HTML5 Video". There's a Video tag in HTML5 that allows you to embed a video player in a web page, but there's no standard as to what that actually means. When someone says they "support HTML5 streaming", they're spewing you a line of BS, because it doesn't exist. There are currently at least 5 different ways to send video to an HTML5-compliant browser: Apple HLS (supported by Safari, some WebKit browsers), MPEG-DASH (Supported by IE11 and very recent versions of Chrome), RTMP (Supported by Flash), RTSP (Supported by all kinds of things, but no adaptive streaming), and progressive download (Supported by just about anything, but can't do live streaming).
RTMP is flash only. There is no native browser support for RTMP.
The IETF has recognized this codec and even protocol mess, and they try to make a mandatory to implement codec for WebRTC. However, they are not very successful.
WebRTC can be added to your list instead. It also allows unidirectional video, but is not scalable (yet).
Comparing the relation between DRiM (Digital Rights Management, what FSF and "End-To-End" do) and DReM (Digital Restrictions Management, what MPAA and Netflix do) with the physical world is like comparing movie pirates to physical thieves.
We live in a digital war on Data. There are entities wanting our data, and there are others which don't want to give their data to us, even if they make their living doing that. Perhaps it is natural to demonize the weapons the other side uses, I don't know.
My guess would be that they see the popularity of FLOSS Blender as a threat and want to gain market share by giving it away for free for non-commercial movies. Perhaps they also got tired of training their new personell, which used Blender before, to use their software.
We don't have unpatchable systems. What we have are vendors not wanting to maintain support for too long as they want to force people to buying always the newest to generate revenue. There is this overall trend in IT industry that hardware gets softer and softer. With every generation, more features are implemented in software, and therefore are, in theory, patchable. But the possibilities of the soft hardware don't meet the commercial interest of the companies.
We have multiple benefits when using computer machines for doing human's work. But we also need to realize this doesn't come for free. Either we live with vulnerable systems, or we update them, simple as that. When purchasing new hardware it should always be a question to ask whether the software can be updated, and how the hw will be maintained. Compliances usually have a bad performance in this. Use well known parts, and be as mainstream as possible.
Computers don't have a long history of serving humans yet. I hope these update issues are a problem of the first generations.
It has to be an NSL. What should be the other explanation? The truecrypt accounts hacked? I don't think so. However, it is too early for a story "The Sudden Policy Change In Truecrypt Explained". There is no proof of this speculation yet.
If the patient however is valid... that is someone actually did invent something, and patient it... then they're owed compensation for that. Pay the man.
The problem is not with the companies doing real research that don't have the money or intent to produce the products themselfes. Its more with the patent system being used to enforce DRM, shooting small competition into the knee with patent claims, patent trolls, or too long terms in certain industries. I think that the current price for smartphone patents seems fair, even if there are some unfair patents like "swipe to unlock". Patents shouldn't be issued for obvious stuff, and be required to be written in clear and common language. There are other areas for smartphones to change regulations for. One would be to allow open source carrier chips. I don't think there would be any harm when anyone could legally hack that chip, and if there is, then its because of exploitable BTS or BSC software, which should be fixed either way.
But even a randomized binary that you compiled yourself is questionable. Who's to say your compiler isn't compromised? Without being able to compare binaries against other peoples with identical checksums you've now turned the effort to verify a file from a global one to just you. You're far more at risk.
Do you mean Trusting trust? You don't have to also randomize the compiler. Instead of the resulting programs, you can compare the compiler binaries, and check whether they are globally the same. There is only a small loss in security as you would need to globally ensure the compiler works right.
So we should use something like ABS with that randomisation enabled? Or should we trust to download distinct blobs for every download? For the latter, nice try NSA, but I don't want you to be abled to incorporate spyware into my download and not be noticed. Its already a pity software gets signed only by so few entities (usually one at a time, at least for deb). Perhaps I know that the blob came from Debian, but I can't verify whether it is the version the public gets, or the special version with some... extra features. The blobs should be signed by more entities, so then all would have to be NSLed.
Why move around your precious brain? All your life depends on it! It is better to store your brain in a safe location and then remote-control a robot body. When this is shot or burned or whatever you only will loose $1M but not your life. Which puts us to the question wheter in such a highly advanced society we will need money, but I think that there will always be a lobby *cough* DRM *cough* that tries to convince everybody we need it.
A smartphone is already a brain enhancer. The only difference is the interface. And when the cyborg tech will be the same phone-home and controlled-by-home shit that smartphones are, there will be a huge change in human society models in the future. The more control we give our computers, the more we need to make sure they do what they were told to do. Computers are too young to be integrated this much in human life. The main problem computers create is the centralisation of control. Users should be aware that they don't protect their security by installing a "malware protector" app onto their devices and then downloading all shit they find on the internet.
Its another situation with disability. Their number isn't big enough for companies to make profit by penetrating their lifes.
Only because something is newer than something else, it is not neccessarily better.
A Keyboard is still the fastest way to enter a text. Perhaps one day there will be brain implants that provide more throughput, but until then the keyboard will be the most superior way to enter information.
Kindle is less about the device. You buy a book store. Amazon is a bookstore, Apple, Google and Microsoft are not. I don't know but I think the ebook market is pretty hard to enter, especially if you can't leverage your paper book market domination to force publishers to also publish an ebook. The vendors should be forced by regulators to separate the bookstores from the devices and then the free market could find the best ebook reader.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, its not the xpi file but the alt key. You will see the old menu, as you knew it.
In fact, they charge money for a device making light, who needs that? We have a fusion reactor in the center of our solar system that delivers us with light. So why pay money for something you get for free?
(Sorry had to make this stupid comparison)
Its about the marketing, not about the hard numbers. Do the people buy apple hardware because there is no cheaper alternative, or the storage-capacity is the cheapest?
When you buy a device, you not just buy the specs, you purchase a bunch of things, as the brand, the design, or the feeling.
About the safety: I don't know.
In Firefox, try Geolocater.
If you have the time and money you use transistors and cables to build your own macro-sized AES encrypting typewriter. You can check all parts yourself. You can send the result per mail, or even scan it and send it to the recipient with E-Mail.
The large corporations could employ secretaries that all day do nothing else than handle these machines. Their communications would be perfectly secure! This will kill unemployment!
The W3C should standardize the way 'End-to-End' communicates with the website. It has a huge potential, not just for mail but also for chat or with WebRTC.
Contrary to widely held popular belief (especially among marketing types), there's not such thing as "HTML5 Video". There's a Video tag in HTML5 that allows you to embed a video player in a web page, but there's no standard as to what that actually means. When someone says they "support HTML5 streaming", they're spewing you a line of BS, because it doesn't exist. There are currently at least 5 different ways to send video to an HTML5-compliant browser: Apple HLS (supported by Safari, some WebKit browsers), MPEG-DASH (Supported by IE11 and very recent versions of Chrome), RTMP (Supported by Flash), RTSP (Supported by all kinds of things, but no adaptive streaming), and progressive download (Supported by just about anything, but can't do live streaming).
RTMP is flash only. There is no native browser support for RTMP.
The IETF has recognized this codec and even protocol mess, and they try to make a mandatory to implement codec for WebRTC. However, they are not very successful.
WebRTC can be added to your list instead. It also allows unidirectional video, but is not scalable (yet).
Comparing the relation between DRiM (Digital Rights Management, what FSF and "End-To-End" do) and DReM (Digital Restrictions Management, what MPAA and Netflix do) with the physical world is like comparing movie pirates to physical thieves.
We live in a digital war on Data. There are entities wanting our data, and there are others which don't want to give their data to us, even if they make their living doing that. Perhaps it is natural to demonize the weapons the other side uses, I don't know.
End-To-End doesn’t trust any website's DOM or context with unencrypted data.
I think this is the most important sentence in TFA, as it shows this is a real user-side-DRM (enforcing pivacy rights) in browsers.
My guess would be that they see the popularity of FLOSS Blender as a threat and want to gain market share by giving it away for free for non-commercial movies. Perhaps they also got tired of training their new personell, which used Blender before, to use their software.
See the top locations for making your next interstellar vacation. Now 20% off!
We don't have unpatchable systems. What we have are vendors not wanting to maintain support for too long as they want to force people to buying always the newest to generate revenue.
There is this overall trend in IT industry that hardware gets softer and softer. With every generation, more features are implemented in software, and therefore are, in theory, patchable. But the possibilities of the soft hardware don't meet the commercial interest of the companies.
We have multiple benefits when using computer machines for doing human's work. But we also need to realize this doesn't come for free. Either we live with vulnerable systems, or we update them, simple as that. When purchasing new hardware it should always be a question to ask whether the software can be updated, and how the hw will be maintained. Compliances usually have a bad performance in this. Use well known parts, and be as mainstream as possible.
Computers don't have a long history of serving humans yet. I hope these update issues are a problem of the first generations.
1st Android introduced a declarative (XML) way to write UIs (I admit I don't know whether this XML gets parsed by java or native code) and
2nd There is no JVM in Android, its Dalvik VM. Google only took the language, but not the whole technology.
It has to be an NSL. What should be the other explanation? The truecrypt accounts hacked? I don't think so.
However, it is too early for a story "The Sudden Policy Change In Truecrypt Explained". There is no proof of this speculation yet.
If the patient however is valid... that is someone actually did invent something, and patient it... then they're owed compensation for that. Pay the man.
Agree.
The problem is not with the companies doing real research that don't have the money or intent to produce the products themselfes. Its more with the patent system being used to enforce DRM, shooting small competition into the knee with patent claims, patent trolls, or too long terms in certain industries.
I think that the current price for smartphone patents seems fair, even if there are some unfair patents like "swipe to unlock".
Patents shouldn't be issued for obvious stuff, and be required to be written in clear and common language.
There are other areas for smartphones to change regulations for. One would be to allow open source carrier chips. I don't think there would be any harm when anyone could legally hack that chip, and if there is, then its because of exploitable BTS or BSC software, which should be fixed either way.
But even a randomized binary that you compiled yourself is questionable. Who's to say your compiler isn't compromised? Without being able to compare binaries against other peoples with identical checksums you've now turned the effort to verify a file from a global one to just you. You're far more at risk.
Do you mean Trusting trust? You don't have to also randomize the compiler. Instead of the resulting programs, you can compare the compiler binaries, and check whether they are globally the same. There is only a small loss in security as you would need to globally ensure the compiler works right.
So we should use something like ABS with that randomisation enabled? Or should we trust to download distinct blobs for every download? For the latter, nice try NSA, but I don't want you to be abled to incorporate spyware into my download and not be noticed. ... extra features. The blobs should be signed by more entities, so then all would have to be NSLed.
Its already a pity software gets signed only by so few entities (usually one at a time, at least for deb). Perhaps I know that the blob came from Debian, but I can't verify whether it is the version the public gets, or the special version with some
3D printers print you!
Already now I have the trusted third party option. Moxie has started a service offering this: http://convergence.io/
Yeah I like to download 10 GB of binary before I can visit webpages. Especially on my smartphone.
Hey, in about a decade a web designer can even assume that the majority of their visitors have these features!
Why move around your precious brain? All your life depends on it! It is better to store your brain in a safe location and then remote-control a robot body. When this is shot or burned or whatever you only will loose $1M but not your life. Which puts us to the question wheter in such a highly advanced society we will need money, but I think that there will always be a lobby *cough* DRM *cough* that tries to convince everybody we need it.
A smartphone is already a brain enhancer. The only difference is the interface. And when the cyborg tech will be the same phone-home and controlled-by-home shit that smartphones are, there will be a huge change in human society models in the future.
The more control we give our computers, the more we need to make sure they do what they were told to do. Computers are too young to be integrated this much in human life. The main problem computers create is the centralisation of control.
Users should be aware that they don't protect their security by installing a "malware protector" app onto their devices and then downloading all shit they find on the internet.
Its another situation with disability. Their number isn't big enough for companies to make profit by penetrating their lifes.
Only because something is newer than something else, it is not neccessarily better.
A Keyboard is still the fastest way to enter a text. Perhaps one day there will be brain implants that provide more throughput, but until then the keyboard will be the most superior way to enter information.
Kindle is less about the device. You buy a book store. Amazon is a bookstore, Apple, Google and Microsoft are not. I don't know but I think the ebook market is pretty hard to enter, especially if you can't leverage your paper book market domination to force publishers to also publish an ebook.
The vendors should be forced by regulators to separate the bookstores from the devices and then the free market could find the best ebook reader.