Actually they did a piece on MSG on the Food Detective a while ago... The sensitivity to MSG is a myth. They even did a test at a restaurant, and only served half the people MSG. At the end, they asked who thinks they had MSG, and what symptoms they had, etc... All the people that raised their hands, and described their headaches and such, actually did not even consume any MSG.
I think it has... I have one of the newer 360s, while my brothre and all his friends have the older units. I heard that the replacement units you get from microsoft, are refurbished older units, such that a failure of the refurb is highly likely... With that being said, out of all my friends, I'm the only one with one of the newer units. So it didn't surprise me that I'm also the only one that didn't have any issues with my 360... And I was playing COD online just as often as all my other friends.
My PS3 on the other hand, which I only recently bought... Had to have the blu-ray drive replaced... The few people I regularly play online with, also had their blu-ray readers crap out on their PS3. I've also had one of my PS3 controllers warranty replaced as it was defective out of the box.
I wonder if the EU will force Apple to stop bundling OSX with Macs, similarly to how MS cannot bundle IE with the OS...
What if I want to buy a cool Macbook Air, but don't want to pay for OSX, lol?
So does that mean when you buy a processor or other such chips, Intel/AMD/etc can't sell it with the firmware/microcode installed on the chip package, because the firmware/microcode is not sold separately? This is ridiculous... Tell the judge to go buy a car, and ask the manufacturer to refund the cost of the seats, because you don't want the seats because you are going to install your own....
It does if one of those tools had a licensing agreement that said that it extends to derivative works... I know, becuase I wrote such a tool, and our companies attorneys made sure that I was explicit in the licensing who owned derivative works created with said tool. (This is especially important because of patent issues, etc)
In California (and Oregon and Washington), they will also give you a form and tell you to name the person driving... However, technically, you are not required to do so... You can make your own affidavit and just say you weren't the person driving... The statutes I linked to above, ONLY say that the "driver" is guilty of the offenses... It does NOT obligate anybody to identify the person driving. That is the POLICE OFFICER's responsibility to determine that.
Who cares if they are the one using that computer, it was assigned to one individual. Just like a license plate is assigned to one individual. It doesn't identify who was driving the car, but it identifies SOMEBODY.
Too bad the statutes in most states identify the DRIVER as being the entity that is in violation of a moving violation. That means the license plate number identifies the owner, but the owner IS NOT and CANNOT be found guilty of running a red light or speeding, unless you can prove they were the DRIVER.
Here are some citations.... Click here for California's statute on running a red light, where it explicitly says DRIVER. And Click here for California's definition of "Driver", as being the OPERATOR of said vehicle.
So like I was saying, your own argument should prove the judge correct. The license plate can identify the owner of the car, as it is "somebody", but that is pointless if that "somebody" is not the CORRECT "somebody", which is EXTREMELY important if you are bringing about criminal charges against somebody...
Re:Postal addresses identify houses!I
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 1
With many red light cameras, the fact that you weren't driving doesn't matter.
Whoever made this statement, is ignorant... Here are some links to California Statutes...
On this page it says that the driver shall not cross a red light...
On this page it defines driver as being the person that is operating the vehicle... Therefore if you are not the operator, you CANNOT be found guilty of this violation.
When I had Internet access in college, the IP addresses assigned to students in the residence halls had DNS records that gave the student's name, the name of the residence hall, and room number. You could request an alternate record be added, but you could not have that information removed. made unavailable to anyone who could run nslookup. I'd expect more such institutions to do the same as a deterrent against sharing of files illegally (they don't have to deal with subpoenas, enough public information is in the DNS for the RIAA to serve the student directly).
You make it sound like IP addresses cannot be and are not spoofed.
Which often doesn't matter. If you loan your car to someone and they get caught by a red light or speed camera, you will get the ticket in the mail and arguing that you weren't the one driving will not get you off (except maybe if you reported the car as stolen).
BS. California statutes define the violator as the operator of the motor vehicle, NOT the registered owner... and yes I have gone to court over a photo radar ticket, where I wasn't driving, and got the ticket dismissed.
Only X509 v3 and later certificates have the ability to identify if a certificate has signing privileges. So why don't we just require all certs to be v3? Simple, because VeriSign, and most of the other root authorities were commissioned before the v3 spec was ratified, therefore are using v1 certs.
So browsers have to be able to tolerate V1 certs... How they behave when you have intermediate V1 certs, is a grey area...
And contrary to what Mr. Potty mouth thinks, Firefox and IE both will "validate" the cert chain that I described. The reason being, I'm not talking about a leaf cert that is MARKED as being a non-signing cert being used to sign a leaf cert. I'm talking about a V1 cert that DOES NOT SAY if it's a signing cert, is used to sign a cert...
This is a VERY important distinction, because if a cert is marked as a non-signing cert, than only a retarded browser will ignore that... But if you hvae a V1 cert, then a browser usually doesn't just toss the cert, because it IS STILL SPEC COMPLIANT, because it's simply an ambiguity (or oversight, depending on how you look at it) of the spec. This is one of the problems with backwards compatibility....
In Firefox, it will display a lock icon, and display NO ERROR MESSAGES until you try to manually verify the certs by actually looking at the cert chain, then you will see that it simply stopped parsing the cert chain at the V1 intermediate cert.
In IE, it will simply not load the page at all, but will not tell you why.
But anyways, the important things to look for, is mainly the common name of the cert matches what you think it should say, (ie, Bank of America, etc). Then check the issuer name, matches the common name of the cert that issued it. Then check that the issuer cert, under "Basic Constraints" actually says, "Is a Certificate Authority", etc.
Actually there is a HUUUUGE difference with this, as I can see one glaring flaw in your examples... In China, people are screwing over foreign copyright holders and such... If you break chinese law, you can be sure that the government will put a stop to you screwing over the government.
You check the certificate to make sure the site matches. Then you check the certificate that signed it, and make sure the trust chain goes all the way back to the appropriate root of trust.
One of the most important things to check, is that the certificate used to sign each certificate was actually a certificate with signing authority. A common vulnerability is that many browsers would walk the certificate chain without actually verifying that a certificate used to sign actually had signing privileges..
What this means, is that somebody can obtain a leaf certificate signed by VeriSign, and then make a fake certificate to look like your bank's certificate, and then sign it with their leaf cert... Then when you open the phishing website, you'll get the lock emblem, and the browser may think it's secure, because it walked the trust chain back to VeriSign, but didn't correctly verify signing authority.
Just because you see a "lock" emblem in the corner of your browser, and "HTTPS" in the address bar doesn't mean sh!t. It just means you have a secure HTTPS session with some website, but you need to inspect the certificates to make sure your secure session is with you think it is with.
are you really going to notice when you go to paypal/etc and the HTTPS is missing just one time?
I must really be a paranoid geek. I trained my wife to always look at the certificate, and inspect the trust chain, EVERY time she logs into the bank, etc...
My dad refused to buy games for me and my brother... Said if we wanted to play games on our TI 99/4A, we had to program them ourselves.... Incidentally, that's how I got into computers. Even wrote a couple programs that my dad's company used on a daily basis when I was 7 years old.
My brother and I would get into competitions seeing who could write better games.
Plus it is, for the most part, write once run anywhere.
Actually, in terms of the UI, I found the exact opposite to be true... I wrote some stuff for a lab demo a while ago, and used the same JVM version from the same JVM provider, on both Linux and Windows. (In this case, Sun). Anyways, I found that the windowing behavior to be completely different between linux and windows, despite using the same version JVM from the same company.
For example, in windows, if you clicked on a component inside a container, the component got the event dispatch. On Linux, the container gets the event dispatch.
I used to have a whole bunch of rants when I ran into these kinds of issues when trying to target Linux and Windows at the same time, that others joked that I should've realized it was "Write once debug everywhere".
You didn't need this ruling to do that, people have been fighting these tickets for years. (At least on the west coast). Reason being, the driving statutes (for speeding anyways) are explicit as saying it is the "driver" that is guilty of speeding. License Plate does not identify driver...
The problem is, that most people don't know this distinction and just pay the fine... A CHP officer even told me this when I went with a friend to court a long time ago...
IP address identifies "a" computer, but not "whose" computer... For all the RIAA/ISP/etc knows the IP address could've been spoofed. Similar to dropping a letter in the mail at the post office with a forged return address. RIAA can say the letter contains pirated copyrighted material and go after the person who owns the house address listed as the return address, but that doesn't meant they got the right person.
The 3GS also has a bigger screen and it's hella faster than any Windows smart phone or the Vu.
Put down that koolaid. The 3GS is NOT faster than "any" Windows Smart Phone... The Asus P565 Windows Mobile phone runs at 800mhz processor... The 3GS only runs at 600mhz.
this is like busting a pot head for wearing a shirt that shows a charicature of him smoking pot. SURE... I think this would be probable cause to search his house and home computer...
No, that is NOT good enough for probable cause... That's like saying a black man going for a walk in a rich neighborhood is probable cause to search his house or person for stolen goods. Or that a Mercedes parked in front of a house in a poor neighborhood is probable cause to search for illegal activity.
Exactly... And nevermind places that have overhead skyways. When I was in Austin, my GPS kept getting confused between thinking I was on the overhead freeway, or the city street underneath it... It kept alternating between telling me to make a U-Turn, and to take the next exit...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they did a piece on MSG on the Food Detective a while ago... The sensitivity to MSG is a myth. They even did a test at a restaurant, and only served half the people MSG. At the end, they asked who thinks they had MSG, and what symptoms they had, etc... All the people that raised their hands, and described their headaches and such, actually did not even consume any MSG.
I think it has... I have one of the newer 360s, while my brothre and all his friends have the older units. I heard that the replacement units you get from microsoft, are refurbished older units, such that a failure of the refurb is highly likely... With that being said, out of all my friends, I'm the only one with one of the newer units. So it didn't surprise me that I'm also the only one that didn't have any issues with my 360... And I was playing COD online just as often as all my other friends. My PS3 on the other hand, which I only recently bought... Had to have the blu-ray drive replaced... The few people I regularly play online with, also had their blu-ray readers crap out on their PS3. I've also had one of my PS3 controllers warranty replaced as it was defective out of the box.
I wonder if the EU will force Apple to stop bundling OSX with Macs, similarly to how MS cannot bundle IE with the OS... What if I want to buy a cool Macbook Air, but don't want to pay for OSX, lol?
So does that mean when you buy a processor or other such chips, Intel/AMD/etc can't sell it with the firmware/microcode installed on the chip package, because the firmware/microcode is not sold separately? This is ridiculous... Tell the judge to go buy a car, and ask the manufacturer to refund the cost of the seats, because you don't want the seats because you are going to install your own....
It does if one of those tools had a licensing agreement that said that it extends to derivative works... I know, becuase I wrote such a tool, and our companies attorneys made sure that I was explicit in the licensing who owned derivative works created with said tool. (This is especially important because of patent issues, etc)
Over here, for $299, you can get a netbook with a 160 gig hard drive
In California (and Oregon and Washington), they will also give you a form and tell you to name the person driving... However, technically, you are not required to do so... You can make your own affidavit and just say you weren't the person driving... The statutes I linked to above, ONLY say that the "driver" is guilty of the offenses... It does NOT obligate anybody to identify the person driving. That is the POLICE OFFICER's responsibility to determine that.
Who cares if they are the one using that computer, it was assigned to one individual. Just like a license plate is assigned to one individual. It doesn't identify who was driving the car, but it identifies SOMEBODY.
Too bad the statutes in most states identify the DRIVER as being the entity that is in violation of a moving violation. That means the license plate number identifies the owner, but the owner IS NOT and CANNOT be found guilty of running a red light or speeding, unless you can prove they were the DRIVER.
Here are some citations.... Click here for California's statute on running a red light, where it explicitly says DRIVER. And Click here for California's definition of "Driver", as being the OPERATOR of said vehicle.
So like I was saying, your own argument should prove the judge correct. The license plate can identify the owner of the car, as it is "somebody", but that is pointless if that "somebody" is not the CORRECT "somebody", which is EXTREMELY important if you are bringing about criminal charges against somebody...
With many red light cameras, the fact that you weren't driving doesn't matter.
Whoever made this statement, is ignorant... Here are some links to California Statutes...
On this page it says that the driver shall not cross a red light...
On this page it defines driver as being the person that is operating the vehicle... Therefore if you are not the operator, you CANNOT be found guilty of this violation.
When I had Internet access in college, the IP addresses assigned to students in the residence halls had DNS records that gave the student's name, the name of the residence hall, and room number. You could request an alternate record be added, but you could not have that information removed. made unavailable to anyone who could run nslookup. I'd expect more such institutions to do the same as a deterrent against sharing of files illegally (they don't have to deal with subpoenas, enough public information is in the DNS for the RIAA to serve the student directly).
You make it sound like IP addresses cannot be and are not spoofed.
Which often doesn't matter. If you loan your car to someone and they get caught by a red light or speed camera, you will get the ticket in the mail and arguing that you weren't the one driving will not get you off (except maybe if you reported the car as stolen).
BS. California statutes define the violator as the operator of the motor vehicle, NOT the registered owner... and yes I have gone to court over a photo radar ticket, where I wasn't driving, and got the ticket dismissed.
Ok, here's the simplified rationale:
Only X509 v3 and later certificates have the ability to identify if a certificate has signing privileges. So why don't we just require all certs to be v3? Simple, because VeriSign, and most of the other root authorities were commissioned before the v3 spec was ratified, therefore are using v1 certs.
So browsers have to be able to tolerate V1 certs... How they behave when you have intermediate V1 certs, is a grey area...
And contrary to what Mr. Potty mouth thinks, Firefox and IE both will "validate" the cert chain that I described. The reason being, I'm not talking about a leaf cert that is MARKED as being a non-signing cert being used to sign a leaf cert. I'm talking about a V1 cert that DOES NOT SAY if it's a signing cert, is used to sign a cert...
This is a VERY important distinction, because if a cert is marked as a non-signing cert, than only a retarded browser will ignore that... But if you hvae a V1 cert, then a browser usually doesn't just toss the cert, because it IS STILL SPEC COMPLIANT, because it's simply an ambiguity (or oversight, depending on how you look at it) of the spec. This is one of the problems with backwards compatibility....
In Firefox, it will display a lock icon, and display NO ERROR MESSAGES until you try to manually verify the certs by actually looking at the cert chain, then you will see that it simply stopped parsing the cert chain at the V1 intermediate cert.
In IE, it will simply not load the page at all, but will not tell you why.
But anyways, the important things to look for, is mainly the common name of the cert matches what you think it should say, (ie, Bank of America, etc). Then check the issuer name, matches the common name of the cert that issued it. Then check that the issuer cert, under "Basic Constraints" actually says, "Is a Certificate Authority", etc.
I've even had my router confiscated in Korea before, because not all the channels used by 802.11g in the US are available for use in Korea.
Consider yourself lucky, mine got confiscated.
Actually there is a HUUUUGE difference with this, as I can see one glaring flaw in your examples... In China, people are screwing over foreign copyright holders and such... If you break chinese law, you can be sure that the government will put a stop to you screwing over the government.
Use of encryption in China without providing the government access to your encryption keys is illegal. Here is a citation.
You check the certificate to make sure the site matches. Then you check the certificate that signed it, and make sure the trust chain goes all the way back to the appropriate root of trust.
One of the most important things to check, is that the certificate used to sign each certificate was actually a certificate with signing authority. A common vulnerability is that many browsers would walk the certificate chain without actually verifying that a certificate used to sign actually had signing privileges..
What this means, is that somebody can obtain a leaf certificate signed by VeriSign, and then make a fake certificate to look like your bank's certificate, and then sign it with their leaf cert... Then when you open the phishing website, you'll get the lock emblem, and the browser may think it's secure, because it walked the trust chain back to VeriSign, but didn't correctly verify signing authority.
Just because you see a "lock" emblem in the corner of your browser, and "HTTPS" in the address bar doesn't mean sh!t. It just means you have a secure HTTPS session with some website, but you need to inspect the certificates to make sure your secure session is with you think it is with.
are you really going to notice when you go to paypal/etc and the HTTPS is missing just one time?
I must really be a paranoid geek. I trained my wife to always look at the certificate, and inspect the trust chain, EVERY time she logs into the bank, etc...
My dad refused to buy games for me and my brother... Said if we wanted to play games on our TI 99/4A, we had to program them ourselves.... Incidentally, that's how I got into computers. Even wrote a couple programs that my dad's company used on a daily basis when I was 7 years old.
My brother and I would get into competitions seeing who could write better games.
Plus it is, for the most part, write once run anywhere.
Actually, in terms of the UI, I found the exact opposite to be true... I wrote some stuff for a lab demo a while ago, and used the same JVM version from the same JVM provider, on both Linux and Windows. (In this case, Sun). Anyways, I found that the windowing behavior to be completely different between linux and windows, despite using the same version JVM from the same company. For example, in windows, if you clicked on a component inside a container, the component got the event dispatch. On Linux, the container gets the event dispatch. I used to have a whole bunch of rants when I ran into these kinds of issues when trying to target Linux and Windows at the same time, that others joked that I should've realized it was "Write once debug everywhere".
You didn't need this ruling to do that, people have been fighting these tickets for years. (At least on the west coast). Reason being, the driving statutes (for speeding anyways) are explicit as saying it is the "driver" that is guilty of speeding. License Plate does not identify driver... The problem is, that most people don't know this distinction and just pay the fine... A CHP officer even told me this when I went with a friend to court a long time ago...
IP address identifies "a" computer, but not "whose" computer... For all the RIAA/ISP/etc knows the IP address could've been spoofed. Similar to dropping a letter in the mail at the post office with a forged return address. RIAA can say the letter contains pirated copyrighted material and go after the person who owns the house address listed as the return address, but that doesn't meant they got the right person.
The 3GS also has a bigger screen and it's hella faster than any Windows smart phone or the Vu.
Put down that koolaid. The 3GS is NOT faster than "any" Windows Smart Phone... The Asus P565 Windows Mobile phone runs at 800mhz processor... The 3GS only runs at 600mhz.
this is like busting a pot head for wearing a shirt that shows a charicature of him smoking pot. SURE... I think this would be probable cause to search his house and home computer...
No, that is NOT good enough for probable cause... That's like saying a black man going for a walk in a rich neighborhood is probable cause to search his house or person for stolen goods. Or that a Mercedes parked in front of a house in a poor neighborhood is probable cause to search for illegal activity.
Exactly... And nevermind places that have overhead skyways. When I was in Austin, my GPS kept getting confused between thinking I was on the overhead freeway, or the city street underneath it... It kept alternating between telling me to make a U-Turn, and to take the next exit...