Ummmm...no.
That's simply not true. In actual practice, your cable modem is limited by a config it grabs from your ISP on boot.
This is no different in the end than your DSL, which is limited at the port on the DSLAM, except for the fact that, unless you live very close to the DSLAM, you may not be able to negotiate a line speed as great as a typical cable modem.
If you'd paid as much for a phone (including the contract) as the iPhone owners have, you'd 'love the iPhone' too, because the alternative is admitting you wasted a huge pile of money on something that doesn't do what you wanted it to.
I keep seeing people post this. It's just not true.
Been though palms, blackberries, Q's, iPaqs, etc. that I paid for and hated immediately or eventually. I love my iPhone, as much as one can love a phone. I didn't pay for the iPhone, nor do I pay for the contract, and I could easily hand it to someone else in my company and write up a PO for whatever else strikes my fancy.
What's wrong with you? How would you "love" your phone if you can't use it for its primary purpose?
You're making an assumption on what we "all" consider the primary purpose of an iPhone. Just because it is a phone, and has phone in it's name doesn't predetermine it's primary purpose for all users.
Yeah..the reception isn't as good as it should be. But I get my email and text messages reliably enough to make me happy (primary purpose for me), I can listen to the NPR car talk podcast while I mow the lawn, and I can use the map when I need to.
Besides - 7 years isn't so bad. And it depends on how much you drive. I have a 10 year old pickup (gas guzzler) with over 200k miles on it. It would be great to have saved on gas in that thing over all that time (if it were still appropriate for use as a towing/hauling vehicle, which is what it gets used for).
I agree with everything you said - and I'm sure this is just a matter of time - but regenerative braking really doesn't help. It's marketing fluff. Only in the most stop and go situations (think mail delivery truck) does the power generated from the braking exceed the power used by the additional weight of the apparatus. But, again, I'm sure it's just a matter of time for the efficiencies to increase.
The problem here is not the protocol, and it's not the browser behaviour, it's the CA behaviour.
I agree. And when you look at the real world, and not an idealized version of what it should be from ietf.org, you see that it is broken beyond reasonable repair as far as authentication is concerned. The protocol IMPLEMENTATION is broken, as "a few companies" can break the entire thing for the average user.
This is exactly the point I was going to bring up. If you have access to install a certificate on a web server, you most likely have access to an admin-like email address, which is really all that is needed to get a "trusted" cert. One of the companies I use will validate by email to a domain contact or alternately to root@, postmaster@, webmaster@, admin@, etc. (a list of about a dozen they will accept).
SSL is useless for initial authentication, however, like most SSH implementations, if it were made easy to accept the cert and then you got an exception if and when the cert changes (DNS attack, mitm, site pwned, etc.), I would find it useful. Of course, "average users" would probably not find this behaviour in any way meaningful.
Have you been living under a rock for 10 years? Yeah, I'm really worried about AOL and CNN taking over. Your list of companies reads like a laundry list of has-been corporations that were big in the 90s.
They are the most dangerous ones. They've fooled you into thinking they are has-beens, but they have actually been building their underground empires, and in one case a command and control station on the dark side of the moon. When they are ready to attack, they will coordinate amongst themselves and do so in concert. They have already reached agreements on who gets what when its all over.
Boy are you gonna be sorry you don't have a double-layered tinfoil hat like mine when the shit comes down.
He was in their employ. Once they asked for access and/or recinded his 'permission' and he refused to cooperate he became a criminal.
Come again, now? If he was in their employ and they asked for access and he refused to cooperate, he is not a criminal. If they rescinded his permission to access the network and he accessed it anyway, that COULD make him a criminal.
You actually think that all of the certificates that are trusted in Firefox/IE are not "accountability free" as you put it? If so, you are sorely mistaken.
Go far enough down the reseller chain and you'll find SEVERAL places selling things like Equifax certs that only care if your credit card clears and you can receive an email at one of the domain contact addresses, or something on a short list of "standard" administrator accounts (postmaster@, root@, hostmaster@, etc.)
And these certs look just the same to the casual user as some expensive, jump through hoops Verisign super-business-trust-we-just-took-up-4-hours-of-your-life-producing-documentation-and-charged-you-$1200-for-the-pleasure certificates.
While you are of course correct about the limitations, when that's all you get, you get used to it. Oil platforms typically have the same setup, and VoIP calls to/from them are to the point of having to just about say "over" at the end of your sentence(s), but its still better than using radio. It's all about setting expectations, and what's available.
I say that we really should change our policies to match the countries that we deal with.
I'm not sure its the case anymore, but it used to be that a hunting permit in Alaska for anyone from out of state cost whatever your home state would charge an Alaskan resident for a hunting permit. For some reason, I just like the way they were thinking there.
They're selling the LTS edition - meaning it will be supported (by the Ubuntu community) long term. I see nothing that shows Best Buy is selling any kind of support with it. They are celling DVDs/CDs....that's all.
Also, why are people so hesitant to use multiple levels of DNS domains? Couldn't that server also be named mark-pfs-01.sjc.whatever.com? That way, everyone in SJC knows it just as "marketing production file server 01". Only people off-site need to realize that it's in SJC.
Becuase when you start getting servers of identical function at different sites and your Tier 1 staff tarts calling it "mark-pfs-01" it's no longer clear exactly what server they are talking about. Non-technical users tend to do this as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm...no. That's simply not true. In actual practice, your cable modem is limited by a config it grabs from your ISP on boot. This is no different in the end than your DSL, which is limited at the port on the DSLAM, except for the fact that, unless you live very close to the DSLAM, you may not be able to negotiate a line speed as great as a typical cable modem.
"What's the downside to being ready?"
Broken, and/or slow connectivity. IPv6 is NOT ready. Publishing AAAA records is a good way to cause yourself problems with virtually 0 benefit.
backed by America's most capable network.
Are you working on getting it through some kind of grass roots promotional advertising deal?
If you'd paid as much for a phone (including the contract) as the iPhone owners have, you'd 'love the iPhone' too, because the alternative is admitting you wasted a huge pile of money on something that doesn't do what you wanted it to.
I keep seeing people post this. It's just not true.
Been though palms, blackberries, Q's, iPaqs, etc. that I paid for and hated immediately or eventually. I love my iPhone, as much as one can love a phone. I didn't pay for the iPhone, nor do I pay for the contract, and I could easily hand it to someone else in my company and write up a PO for whatever else strikes my fancy.
What's wrong with you? How would you "love" your phone if you can't use it for its primary purpose?
You're making an assumption on what we "all" consider the primary purpose of an iPhone. Just because it is a phone, and has phone in it's name doesn't predetermine it's primary purpose for all users.
Yeah..the reception isn't as good as it should be. But I get my email and text messages reliably enough to make me happy (primary purpose for me), I can listen to the NPR car talk podcast while I mow the lawn, and I can use the map when I need to.
Works for me.
You couldn't print new business cards with new email?
This is why people in IT typically don't make it into management or any other business positions.
They aren't rumors. 4 of like 25 people on my gmail for domains, including me, could not access mail via web, pop, or imap.
Good point.
[daryl@SFWebApp01 ~]$ uptime
23:55:05 up 371 days, 10:36, 6 users, load average: 0.10, 0.17, 0.17
sfrouter02 uptime is 1 year, 17 weeks, 6 days, 9 hours, 48 minutes
on the other hand 2-3 years ago you couldn't even buy a computer without Windows on it.
No further comment necessary.
And now the moon! Ha! We're getting good at blowing things up... Hmmm... *searches closet for tin foil suit* Might need this...
There ya go. Fixed that for you.
Besides - 7 years isn't so bad. And it depends on how much you drive. I have a 10 year old pickup (gas guzzler) with over 200k miles on it. It would be great to have saved on gas in that thing over all that time (if it were still appropriate for use as a towing/hauling vehicle, which is what it gets used for).
and you can have regenerative braking.
I agree with everything you said - and I'm sure this is just a matter of time - but regenerative braking really doesn't help. It's marketing fluff. Only in the most stop and go situations (think mail delivery truck) does the power generated from the braking exceed the power used by the additional weight of the apparatus. But, again, I'm sure it's just a matter of time for the efficiencies to increase.
The problem here is not the protocol, and it's not the browser behaviour, it's the CA behaviour.
I agree. And when you look at the real world, and not an idealized version of what it should be from ietf.org, you see that it is broken beyond reasonable repair as far as authentication is concerned. The protocol IMPLEMENTATION is broken, as "a few companies" can break the entire thing for the average user.
This is exactly the point I was going to bring up. If you have access to install a certificate on a web server, you most likely have access to an admin-like email address, which is really all that is needed to get a "trusted" cert. One of the companies I use will validate by email to a domain contact or alternately to root@, postmaster@, webmaster@, admin@, etc. (a list of about a dozen they will accept).
SSL is useless for initial authentication, however, like most SSH implementations, if it were made easy to accept the cert and then you got an exception if and when the cert changes (DNS attack, mitm, site pwned, etc.), I would find it useful. Of course, "average users" would probably not find this behaviour in any way meaningful.
Have you been living under a rock for 10 years? Yeah, I'm really worried about AOL and CNN taking over. Your list of companies reads like a laundry list of has-been corporations that were big in the 90s.
They are the most dangerous ones. They've fooled you into thinking they are has-beens, but they have actually been building their underground empires, and in one case a command and control station on the dark side of the moon. When they are ready to attack, they will coordinate amongst themselves and do so in concert. They have already reached agreements on who gets what when its all over.
Boy are you gonna be sorry you don't have a double-layered tinfoil hat like mine when the shit comes down.
Please mod parent up. You can't just tap an existing active fiber optic line any more than you can just take a sip from an open fire hose.
The NSA could tell you how, but then they'd have to kill you.
No, but your foot can. You aren't digging that deep or that wide. A backhoe would be overkill.
He was in their employ. Once they asked for access and/or recinded his 'permission' and he refused to cooperate he became a criminal.
Come again, now? If he was in their employ and they asked for access and he refused to cooperate, he is not a criminal. If they rescinded his permission to access the network and he accessed it anyway, that COULD make him a criminal.
You actually think that all of the certificates that are trusted in Firefox/IE are not "accountability free" as you put it? If so, you are sorely mistaken.
Go far enough down the reseller chain and you'll find SEVERAL places selling things like Equifax certs that only care if your credit card clears and you can receive an email at one of the domain contact addresses, or something on a short list of "standard" administrator accounts (postmaster@, root@, hostmaster@, etc.)
And these certs look just the same to the casual user as some expensive, jump through hoops Verisign super-business-trust-we-just-took-up-4-hours-of-your-life-producing-documentation-and-charged-you-$1200-for-the-pleasure certificates.
Considering people who receive resumes are often HR luddites, it's a test - but not of how good the tool is. More a test of adoption.
While you are of course correct about the limitations, when that's all you get, you get used to it. Oil platforms typically have the same setup, and VoIP calls to/from them are to the point of having to just about say "over" at the end of your sentence(s), but its still better than using radio. It's all about setting expectations, and what's available.
I say that we really should change our policies to match the countries that we deal with.
I'm not sure its the case anymore, but it used to be that a hunting permit in Alaska for anyone from out of state cost whatever your home state would charge an Alaskan resident for a hunting permit. For some reason, I just like the way they were thinking there.
They're selling the LTS edition - meaning it will be supported (by the Ubuntu community) long term. I see nothing that shows Best Buy is selling any kind of support with it. They are celling DVDs/CDs....that's all.
Also, why are people so hesitant to use multiple levels of DNS domains? Couldn't that server also be named mark-pfs-01.sjc.whatever.com? That way, everyone in SJC knows it just as "marketing production file server 01". Only people off-site need to realize that it's in SJC.
Becuase when you start getting servers of identical function at different sites and your Tier 1 staff tarts calling it "mark-pfs-01" it's no longer clear exactly what server they are talking about. Non-technical users tend to do this as well.
clamwin almost doesn't suck ass. http://clamwin.com/