Forbes is one of the few sites for which I do end up disabling ad blocking. More specifically, if there is some Forbes content that I want to see (They often show up very high in the organic Google results and the content is often very-good albeit a bit too high-level), I end up pasting the link into Internet Explorer to read it. I would say about 50% of the time that they show their block screen, I end up doing this. The other half I find the information somewhere else.
Where do you live? What did they change in the locksmithing laws? I was actually considering getting my license. I thought it was relatively easy. Take your class, pay your fee. What is the new requirement that makes it hard?
That all being said, I'm willing to pay for eReader content even with all of the limitations you point out. It's just not available. I've pointed these out elsewhere, but here are two quick examples. You can read them on anything except a Kindle eReader!
http://www.amazon.com/Goodnigh...http://www.amazon.com/Popular-...
Go to the Kindle Store and try to purchase any number of books/magazines and they aren't available for any eInk Kindle, only Fire Tablets. Okay those are sort of Kindles but still means that you don't have access to Kindle content. I don't expect the thing to run apps, but to be able to read books/magazines seems like a pretty basic function of an eReader!
I've been to Mexico City and the program doesn't work. Middle-class families just have an extra car and take the correct one based on the day of the week. It only penalizes poor people.
I can't figure out what a 100 score actually represents so I don't know how high this got modded, but many small businesses use gmail for their email. Also there is a paid version of gmail for enterprises. And if you are a job candidate, you will often use your gmail address. You don't want to use your current employer's email for finding a new job for what I hope are obvious reasons.
This seems to be neither a "many eyes" issue nor an open vs. closed source issue. It has more to do with negotiating power and incentives. Apple is the world's most valuable brand. This gives them leverage in negotiations. It also means it's high-risk for them to bundle bloatware. Google comes in #3 (surprisingly) behind Microsoft and Nexus branded devices never have bloatware. These are also premium devices with high margins. As you move further down the food chain there is more temptation to bloatware as it can contribute a higher percentage to profits due to the lower profit to be had in selling the devices. And even Apple has succumbed to this a little bit by pushing Apple Maps which is just a PITA for users. Something opens in Apple maps means you have to copy the address, close Apple Maps, then open Google Maps and paste it in.
Android is Open Source. Or at least historically has been. Giving the source to the carriers isn't a bad thing. It's the behavior of the carriers that's the problem. Even if the OS were closed source, some vendors would choose to implement these 'features' on behalf of the carrier. I don't think we should portray the distribution of source code as something negative that enables bad behavior.
I see what you mean and have to concede that you are most likely right. The data is how Google makes their money so they are likely only to hand it over when pried from their (cold, dead) fingers!
There was a time when the NSA handing the data over to China would have been a crackpot conspiracy theory and the only citations would have been some sort of circular conspiracy theorist references. But given some of the well-documented behavior of our three-letter agencies, this is a suspicion that a rational person can hold. That's what's troubling here.
I believe that this has, from a technical standpoint, largely been solved. In both iOS and Android (for the past two years or so), you can install an app without giving it all of the required permissions. But the defect here doesn't seem to be related to client device settings at all. Rather, they seem to have servers that use the IMEA for identification, authentication, and authorization as if presenting the IMEI were the same as a client-side certificate. And worse, they have no counter measures against brute force. They need to add a client-specific token if they want to maintain login.
There is no special club. Everybody is allowed to submit orders that they intend to trade. What you can't do is submit an order without intent to trade it at the time it's submitted. It's not illegal for me to accidentally bump into you walking down a busy street. It is illegal for me to intentionally shove you. In this case, prosecution will have to prove intent. But I don't think it will be very difficult. HFT traders make money if and only if their trades execute. Otherwise they just pay insane costs. This guy had a strategy that would make money if and only if his trades failed to execute. The difference is night and day. If you think HFT is bad, try placing a bond order where there is no HFT on the other side. The spreads are huge between the bid/ask and half the time there is nobody willing to buy your bond at any price!
The difference between the two is intent which is why, in the US, prosecutors often have to show "mens rea" In this case, the intent is pretty clear but prosecutors will still have to prove it.
I've used multiple retail trading platforms and I've cancelled plenty of orders. It's pretty hard to cancel a "market" order since they execute very quickly. But limit orders often cancel or expire.
This is the argument that neither racism or sexism exist in business, since those companies would lose to their more egalitarian competitors. This may be true, but bad companies can stay in business for a long time so this would take many human generations to happen. That's not a viable way to achieve fairness.
Except that in Macro Malware, this would actually make the problem worse. People might know not to click on executables and many "endpoint protection" packages will create a popup warning. Also Windows does a great job of tagging files as "downloaded from the internet" and requiring extra user confirmations before taking certain actions. But one thinks of an Excel file as data, not as code. People will open Excel select File/Open and then pick the XLSX with extension showing and get infected.
Signing and encryption are entirely different beasts. I hope I'm not being a pedant, but we really should be clear here and I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
Yes but that implementation will turn the buffer overflow into a kernel panic which, in terms of desirability, is no better than the otherwise-prevented buffer overflow if you have a monolithic kernel. In a microkernel the memory protection is quite useful as the process can be restarted before it behaves in a strange way. In a monolithic kernel, a memory safe language tuns the buffer overflow into a panic. I don't see that providing any substantial improvement but OS are not my area of expertise.
Slashdot Mirror
Forbes is one of the few sites for which I do end up disabling ad blocking. More specifically, if there is some Forbes content that I want to see (They often show up very high in the organic Google results and the content is often very-good albeit a bit too high-level), I end up pasting the link into Internet Explorer to read it. I would say about 50% of the time that they show their block screen, I end up doing this. The other half I find the information somewhere else.
Thank you for the thorough reply.
Where do you live? What did they change in the locksmithing laws? I was actually considering getting my license. I thought it was relatively easy. Take your class, pay your fee. What is the new requirement that makes it hard?
If Amazon were subject to an open redirect or an XSS, the link could have actually gone to an Amazon server!
That all being said, I'm willing to pay for eReader content even with all of the limitations you point out. It's just not available. I've pointed these out elsewhere, but here are two quick examples. You can read them on anything except a Kindle eReader! http://www.amazon.com/Goodnigh... http://www.amazon.com/Popular-...
http://www.amazon.com/Popular-... Click "Available on these devices." No eReaders. It's the case for many magazines. Or this one. http://www.amazon.com/Goodnigh...
Go to the Kindle Store and try to purchase any number of books/magazines and they aren't available for any eInk Kindle, only Fire Tablets. Okay those are sort of Kindles but still means that you don't have access to Kindle content. I don't expect the thing to run apps, but to be able to read books/magazines seems like a pretty basic function of an eReader!
I've been to Mexico City and the program doesn't work. Middle-class families just have an extra car and take the correct one based on the day of the week. It only penalizes poor people.
If you're sending emails on behalf of your business, false positives cost you many. They may not be caused by your severs, but they are your problem.
I can't figure out what a 100 score actually represents so I don't know how high this got modded, but many small businesses use gmail for their email. Also there is a paid version of gmail for enterprises. And if you are a job candidate, you will often use your gmail address. You don't want to use your current employer's email for finding a new job for what I hope are obvious reasons.
This seems to be neither a "many eyes" issue nor an open vs. closed source issue. It has more to do with negotiating power and incentives. Apple is the world's most valuable brand. This gives them leverage in negotiations. It also means it's high-risk for them to bundle bloatware. Google comes in #3 (surprisingly) behind Microsoft and Nexus branded devices never have bloatware. These are also premium devices with high margins. As you move further down the food chain there is more temptation to bloatware as it can contribute a higher percentage to profits due to the lower profit to be had in selling the devices. And even Apple has succumbed to this a little bit by pushing Apple Maps which is just a PITA for users. Something opens in Apple maps means you have to copy the address, close Apple Maps, then open Google Maps and paste it in.
Android is Open Source. Or at least historically has been. Giving the source to the carriers isn't a bad thing. It's the behavior of the carriers that's the problem. Even if the OS were closed source, some vendors would choose to implement these 'features' on behalf of the carrier. I don't think we should portray the distribution of source code as something negative that enables bad behavior.
I see what you mean and have to concede that you are most likely right. The data is how Google makes their money so they are likely only to hand it over when pried from their (cold, dead) fingers!
Uh I think you could write a script for this which would be a hobby for a day.
There was a time when the NSA handing the data over to China would have been a crackpot conspiracy theory and the only citations would have been some sort of circular conspiracy theorist references. But given some of the well-documented behavior of our three-letter agencies, this is a suspicion that a rational person can hold. That's what's troubling here.
I believe that this has, from a technical standpoint, largely been solved. In both iOS and Android (for the past two years or so), you can install an app without giving it all of the required permissions. But the defect here doesn't seem to be related to client device settings at all. Rather, they seem to have servers that use the IMEA for identification, authentication, and authorization as if presenting the IMEI were the same as a client-side certificate. And worse, they have no counter measures against brute force. They need to add a client-specific token if they want to maintain login.
There is no special club. Everybody is allowed to submit orders that they intend to trade. What you can't do is submit an order without intent to trade it at the time it's submitted. It's not illegal for me to accidentally bump into you walking down a busy street. It is illegal for me to intentionally shove you. In this case, prosecution will have to prove intent. But I don't think it will be very difficult. HFT traders make money if and only if their trades execute. Otherwise they just pay insane costs. This guy had a strategy that would make money if and only if his trades failed to execute. The difference is night and day. If you think HFT is bad, try placing a bond order where there is no HFT on the other side. The spreads are huge between the bid/ask and half the time there is nobody willing to buy your bond at any price!
The difference between the two is intent which is why, in the US, prosecutors often have to show "mens rea" In this case, the intent is pretty clear but prosecutors will still have to prove it.
I've used multiple retail trading platforms and I've cancelled plenty of orders. It's pretty hard to cancel a "market" order since they execute very quickly. But limit orders often cancel or expire.
Yes, they sometimes cancel transactions for various reasons. What they don't do is submit transactions with no intent of completing them.
This is the argument that neither racism or sexism exist in business, since those companies would lose to their more egalitarian competitors. This may be true, but bad companies can stay in business for a long time so this would take many human generations to happen. That's not a viable way to achieve fairness.
Except that in Macro Malware, this would actually make the problem worse. People might know not to click on executables and many "endpoint protection" packages will create a popup warning. Also Windows does a great job of tagging files as "downloaded from the internet" and requiring extra user confirmations before taking certain actions. But one thinks of an Excel file as data, not as code. People will open Excel select File/Open and then pick the XLSX with extension showing and get infected.
They do. He got modded to -1 Troll which will reduce Karma and mod points.
Signing and encryption are entirely different beasts. I hope I'm not being a pedant, but we really should be clear here and I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
Yes but that implementation will turn the buffer overflow into a kernel panic which, in terms of desirability, is no better than the otherwise-prevented buffer overflow if you have a monolithic kernel. In a microkernel the memory protection is quite useful as the process can be restarted before it behaves in a strange way. In a monolithic kernel, a memory safe language tuns the buffer overflow into a panic. I don't see that providing any substantial improvement but OS are not my area of expertise.