I was involved as a witness to exactly one sexual harassment law suit. The woman who accused her boss of harassment was the Indian version of Phyllis from The Office.
She claimed her boss would play with himself when talking to her.
Her boss had a nervous tic: he jingled the coins in his pocket.
Nowadays this would be a shit-storm on social media.
Let's take the equipment out of the equation and make it a face-to-face conversation. If you are in a public place like a store, or restaurant, or a company's office, there is no "expectation of privacy" since you are in a location that other people can access and any conversation could be overheard or recorded. This is why the police can record conversations that happen in the street but need a warrant to plant a bug or tap your phone line.
That's one theory. I've seen another way to wire it up so that the current sensors are fooled but I can't find a link to the article. It was a good break down of the "independent" tests.
The problem with climate change is we don't have a control group.
We know that Earth has gone through hot and cold cycles before (the Sahara was once a rainforest) so establishing a clear cause-effect relationship is impossible since we don't have another depopulated Earth to use as a control.
I haven't seen much about Wolfram before - other than Wolfram|Alpha - but I get a distinct impression from this blog. He sounds like an insufferably arrogant twat.
The other is having the thing only remotely accessible when it joins itself to a VPN
Sure. There are a number of ways to lock down the access before the HTTP traffic with firewalls or TLS and certificate validation. But the point of IoT is that users will have these things in their homes connected to their home internet connection. Joe User generally has no clue about setting up a firewall and I'm not sure he should be expected to.
Your way puts an extra burden on Joe User. I want that extra burden placed on the IoT developers so Joe User can still have - as ESR put it - the luxury of ignorance.
Primarily it's the "I have a hammer. Every problem is a nail." syndrome. HTTP is being used for everything and HTTP is a really bad protocol.
Okay, HTTP is a pretty good protocol for what it was designed: stateless, plain-text, request/reply with no authentication or encryption. It was designed to be open not locked down.
The problem is we've been trying to find ways to lock down the protocol and use it in ways far beyond what it was meant for. SSL fixes the encryption problem but it can't fix inherent weaknesses in the protocol itself.
Now, imagine you have a nifty new device that you decide needs to be on the Internet. What's the simplest way to go? Design a server program that uses the socket interface or just install a web server (Apache, nginx,...)?
Kinda like how light bends and reflects at the boundary of two dissimilar materials (eg water/air or glass/air) the waves from earthquakes show the boundaries in the layers below the crust.
I think it's more "We don't know whats in the packets but we want to throttle the data based on the protocol being utilized".
It's a subtle difference but it makes a huge difference...
It's a subtle difference that is impossible to reliably determine without reading the packet. And by packet, I mean an IP packet.
In IP only source and destination addresses are available while TCP and UDP adds the source and destination ports (source port is optional on UDP). So to even determine the port number which can quite often be used to guess the protocol (eg. 80 is HTTP) you have to read part of the IP packet contents.
For something like streaming media which could be using HTTP as the transport, you have to read even more of the packet to determine what is being transferred and how.
All of this poking around in the packets means that you are no longer a "common carrier" because you are actively investigating what is inside the message instead of simply sending it along based on the source and destination addresses.
No, because regular phone companies fall under the "common carrier" laws. This basically means that they can't be held liable for what goes over their lines but they have to abide by the FCC regulations.
ISPs - the big ones, anyway - are trying to have it both ways. They want the protection of being a common carrier - no lawsuits for content - but without the annoying FCC regulations like net neutrality.
They're basically trying to say, "We don't know what's in the packets but we want to throttle the data based on what's in the packets."
The problem is they don't know what it will do to the ice surface.
Curling is not played on smooth ice. The ice is sprayed with droplets of water that freeze quickly to create a bumpy surface called "pebble". Even with normal brooms this pebble can break down during play. A more abrasive material on the brooms could damage that pebble faster.
The problem is not likely the OS or software running on that PC. The problem is far more likely to be a specific piece of hardware on that PC that is used to communicate with some other system.
Remember Windows 3.1 did not have any native network stack. You had to buy or download a free network stack separately (Trumpet WinSock, anyone?). So any interface that came out of the PC was likely some proprietary protocol that had some "interesting" drivers that loaded before Windows 3.1 started and hooked directly in to the BIOS interrupt tables.
Good luck getting a driver from the 3.1 era working on anything at all nowadays, even emulated.
Exactly. What the young-uns don't know is that the 3.1 era drivers - especially for customized hardware - were often loaded before the Windows 3.1 kernel and involved changing the interrupt vectors out from underneath the kernel.
Primarily because I'm betting the interface from that Windows 3.1 machine has some very specific DOS "driver" (TSR for us old-timers) that even Windows 95 would kill.
There were some very interesting hacks that could be done on a DOS box. I remember writing a TSR that bumped up the system timer to allow a finer grain on the timer events. It also sent out the "normal" system event to the rest of the OS so Windows would keep running.
We're on/.. By definition we're all wasting time....usually instead of working.
That being said, this raises some interesting questions about how our brains parse the languages. Would a mnemonic like GT be simpler to parse than >.
Of course, I think this brings up the question of first language. Someone with English and the Latin alphabet may find the mnemonics easier but someone for whom the Latin alphabet is not their primary alphabet might handle the operators better.
Slashdot Mirror
Had this conversation with my wife the other day. My answer:
Make me in to a LifeGem (Google it), mount me on a necklace, and let me hang between her boobs.
I was involved as a witness to exactly one sexual harassment law suit. The woman who accused her boss of harassment was the Indian version of Phyllis from The Office.
She claimed her boss would play with himself when talking to her.
Her boss had a nervous tic: he jingled the coins in his pocket.
Nowadays this would be a shit-storm on social media.
It's about expectation of privacy.
Let's take the equipment out of the equation and make it a face-to-face conversation. If you are in a public place like a store, or restaurant, or a company's office, there is no "expectation of privacy" since you are in a location that other people can access and any conversation could be overheard or recorded. This is why the police can record conversations that happen in the street but need a warrant to plant a bug or tap your phone line.
That's one theory. I've seen another way to wire it up so that the current sensors are fooled but I can't find a link to the article. It was a good break down of the "independent" tests.
The problem with climate change is we don't have a control group.
We know that Earth has gone through hot and cold cycles before (the Sahara was once a rainforest) so establishing a clear cause-effect relationship is impossible since we don't have another depopulated Earth to use as a control.
I haven't seen much about Wolfram before - other than Wolfram|Alpha - but I get a distinct impression from this blog. He sounds like an insufferably arrogant twat.
The other is having the thing only remotely accessible when it joins itself to a VPN
Sure. There are a number of ways to lock down the access before the HTTP traffic with firewalls or TLS and certificate validation. But the point of IoT is that users will have these things in their homes connected to their home internet connection. Joe User generally has no clue about setting up a firewall and I'm not sure he should be expected to.
Your way puts an extra burden on Joe User. I want that extra burden placed on the IoT developers so Joe User can still have - as ESR put it - the luxury of ignorance.
Supposedly unrelated. He was already having tax problems before the story broke...at least, that's what the authorities are saying.
Primarily it's the "I have a hammer. Every problem is a nail." syndrome. HTTP is being used for everything and HTTP is a really bad protocol.
Okay, HTTP is a pretty good protocol for what it was designed: stateless, plain-text, request/reply with no authentication or encryption. It was designed to be open not locked down.
The problem is we've been trying to find ways to lock down the protocol and use it in ways far beyond what it was meant for. SSL fixes the encryption problem but it can't fix inherent weaknesses in the protocol itself.
Now, imagine you have a nifty new device that you decide needs to be on the Internet. What's the simplest way to go? Design a server program that uses the socket interface or just install a web server (Apache, nginx, ...)?
Which *BSD or Linux ships with ads integrated into the GUI?
Reply to This
Ubuntu.
And Bat Boy. Never forget Bat Boy.
We know there are different layers due to the way that seismic waves move through the planet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).
Kinda like how light bends and reflects at the boundary of two dissimilar materials (eg water/air or glass/air) the waves from earthquakes show the boundaries in the layers below the crust.
...probably has a little too much...
...probably has a little too many...
Since we're already picking on grammar. :-)
I think it's more "We don't know whats in the packets but we want to throttle the data based on the protocol being utilized".
It's a subtle difference but it makes a huge difference...
It's a subtle difference that is impossible to reliably determine without reading the packet. And by packet, I mean an IP packet.
In IP only source and destination addresses are available while TCP and UDP adds the source and destination ports (source port is optional on UDP). So to even determine the port number which can quite often be used to guess the protocol (eg. 80 is HTTP) you have to read part of the IP packet contents.
For something like streaming media which could be using HTTP as the transport, you have to read even more of the packet to determine what is being transferred and how.
All of this poking around in the packets means that you are no longer a "common carrier" because you are actively investigating what is inside the message instead of simply sending it along based on the source and destination addresses.
No, because regular phone companies fall under the "common carrier" laws. This basically means that they can't be held liable for what goes over their lines but they have to abide by the FCC regulations.
ISPs - the big ones, anyway - are trying to have it both ways. They want the protection of being a common carrier - no lawsuits for content - but without the annoying FCC regulations like net neutrality.
They're basically trying to say, "We don't know what's in the packets but we want to throttle the data based on what's in the packets."
I think that's the plan eventually. It's just a logistics issue of getting the governing body together with enough beer to make a decision.
The problem is they don't know what it will do to the ice surface.
Curling is not played on smooth ice. The ice is sprayed with droplets of water that freeze quickly to create a bumpy surface called "pebble". Even with normal brooms this pebble can break down during play. A more abrasive material on the brooms could damage that pebble faster.
Those cars haven't been "stock" for decades.
1980? Wow. You got the new stuff.
Global memory allocation for the WIN!
Who needs IPC when you can just allocate a memory block and have ALL of the processes use it?
Sure, there's the minor issue of running out of system RAM but as long as everyone plays nice, there shouldn't be any problems. Right?
The problem is not likely the OS or software running on that PC. The problem is far more likely to be a specific piece of hardware on that PC that is used to communicate with some other system.
Remember Windows 3.1 did not have any native network stack. You had to buy or download a free network stack separately (Trumpet WinSock, anyone?). So any interface that came out of the PC was likely some proprietary protocol that had some "interesting" drivers that loaded before Windows 3.1 started and hooked directly in to the BIOS interrupt tables.
Good luck getting a driver from the 3.1 era working on anything at all nowadays, even emulated.
Exactly. What the young-uns don't know is that the 3.1 era drivers - especially for customized hardware - were often loaded before the Windows 3.1 kernel and involved changing the interrupt vectors out from underneath the kernel.
Primarily because I'm betting the interface from that Windows 3.1 machine has some very specific DOS "driver" (TSR for us old-timers) that even Windows 95 would kill.
There were some very interesting hacks that could be done on a DOS box. I remember writing a TSR that bumped up the system timer to allow a finer grain on the timer events. It also sent out the "normal" system event to the rest of the OS so Windows would keep running.
Ironic since the main reason Firefox even exists was the original developers thought Mozilla was too bloated...
We're on /.. By definition we're all wasting time....usually instead of working.
That being said, this raises some interesting questions about how our brains parse the languages. Would a mnemonic like GT be simpler to parse than >.
Of course, I think this brings up the question of first language. Someone with English and the Latin alphabet may find the mnemonics easier but someone for whom the Latin alphabet is not their primary alphabet might handle the operators better.