I just checked, and both MacOS X and Windows 7 seem to trust the CNNIC root...
Yep. In OS X, as an administrator, go to Keychain Access, select "System Roots", and notice CNNIC ROOT in the list. While you're there, may as well do a GET INFO on it, expand the "Trust" setting, and mark it as untrusted.
I'm not sure how your version of mozilla works, but I have Firefox, and last time I checked, just hovering over the lock tells me which CA signed the ssl cert for the current website I'm visiting. I have to make the effort to go to the key dialog box to find out anything else. It would be fishy if I didn't see Thawte as the CA for google.
Suppose CNNIC issued themselves a phony intermediate CA certificate labeled Thawte, and then used that to issue their phony gmail certificate. Would Firefox show the intermediate CA, or the ultimate root? It looks to me like it would show the issuer of the final certificate, i.e. the phony intermediate CA.
SSL DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO GUARANTEE ANYTHING APART FROM AUTHENTICTY
Uh, no. It guarantees against eavesdropping as well.
As it appears, this mob have verified their identity sufficiently for Mozilla to decide they are able to put something on the interweb and verify they put it there.
No. They can now put anything on the web _as any name they like_ and verify that the authorized user of that name did so. For instance, they can put up their own "www.gmail.com" site that verifies as real; it can even say the certificate was issued to Google.
My biggest wakeup call was when we had to stop printing a series of art books because the artist signed a contract with another company, not for the works WE printed, but for another totally unrelated work. He didn't see the little part of the contract which gave the company he signed up with TOTAL rights to ALL his works, even those that they had never printed or were never planning to print, created since the day he was born. WOW!
You sure needed a better lawyer. You don't have to obtain copyright ownership in order to secure a nonexclusive right to distribute a work, and if you'd gotten that from the artist in the first place, your contract would have taken priority over the later one, and you'd have been able to continue printing without actually being evil.
I don't know about art books, but for works of fiction it is NOT typical for an author to sign away his copyright.
Read this post from one of Macmillan's authors (Tobias Buckell). An excellent explanation for why tiered pricing is a good business practice.
Looks reasonable until you get a third of the way into it... where he implies that an eBook should be priced such that eBook sales make up all the production costs of a book, despite the fact that the book is being sold in other editions as well. Then he backs off and handwaves, claiming a few hundred sales (at $9.99) won't even cover the additional cost of making an eBook edition.
I agree Macmillan has the right to put obnoxiously high prices on eBooks (though next time they raise paper book prices, I don't want to hear the often-heard claim about paper and ink prices, since by pricing eBooks sky-high they've already established that production costs don't matter). Personally I think all it will do is price them out of the market; to most people an eBook is a lower-value item than a paper book, and they just aren't going to pay as much for it.
Personally I prefer eBooks to paper books, but with the caveat that the eBook has to be DRM-free. A DRM-encumbered eBook is worth on close order of $0.
...Woz not only reproduces the problem, he disassembles the firmware, finds the bug, and creates a patch. Which also makes the in-dash cell phone make calls for free, just for old time's sake.
If I were Toyota, I'd listen to Woz. Heck, I'd send out a rep to anyone who didn't sound insane and claimed he could reliably reproduce the problem. In Woz's case, I'd send out my head of engineering, though.
Given that description does anything the NFL does make sense? Seriously how can you have so many black guys playing and so few of them quarterbacks?
Because the offensive linemen like it that way. Remember their job is to clobber the quarterback... often a white guy, often whom they generally outmass by more than a few pounds. It's cathartic for them.
when you start charging for food, you move from being a collection of friends to a sport bar, and sports bars don't get fair use.
Certainly not. The relevant definition of performing or displaying a work "publicly" is given in 17 USC 101:
"to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;"
So if you open up your house to all comers, then the performance is public. If you only invite your "social acquaintances", it's not public, even if you charge those acquaintances for food. It's a "public" performance right, not a "commercial" performance right.
The nonsense about TV size only applies once it's already established that a public performance is taking place.
Natural languages are interpreted, not compiled. And there's never been any clear specs for the interpreter. Generally you build an interpreter and language producer by training a neural network with the language, but not against any reference interpreter/producer... no, you do it against many different nth generation neural networks. And then you wonder why you have such a mess.
I see your phonebook edition and raise you the three-ring binder edition (Which I still have; I no longer have the phonebook edition, though). I used (and learned C on) Megamax C on a Lisa 2/10 running MacWorks.
While the Mac wasn't locked down like the iPhone, neither was it anywhere near as open as the Apple II series or the IBM PC. No programming environment built in, no command line, no card slots. It was the first embodiment of Steve Jobs's ideal of computer-as-appliance.
I don't know (or particularly care) what Strunk and White say on the subject, but I had no problem understanding that the modifier attached to the most recent noun
Then you misunderstood. The most recent noun for the modifying clause in question was "Christian", which was part of a phrase modifying the most recent noun "client". The clause "that she spent the last three days at a pot-fueled Wiccan orgy." was intended to modify the subject of the whole sentence ("Someone"). It was not the Christian client who went to the orgy.
There are a few research institutes that make money by licensing research, though. Would they be considered non-practicing entities? Because that does seem like a legitimate use of the patent system.
It's legitimate if they're actually doing research. It's not legitimate if they're just brainstorming a bunch of ideas based on the current state of the art and then patenting everything which comes out of the brainstorming session.
The important difference between that and the "Can we live on renewables" absolutely worthless piece of reading, is that it has been long established that green energy alone will not give us the terawatts we need to enjoy our relatively luxurious lifestyle. We need to go down on energy usage, and that is what Monbiot advocates for.
Ah, an honest hair-shirt environmentalist. How refreshing.
Well, sorry, but that's how a class-action suit works. They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class, but if you don't see a notification, you're out of luck, and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else. Boo hoo. Go ahead and opt out.
And that's pretty messed up. A sues B, and they come to a settlement which extinguishes C's rights without his input.
Someone who fails to distinguish between formal and informal writing may have difficulty distinguishing formal and informal behavior in other situations and end up telling your major client, who just happens to be a devout Christian, that she spent the last three days at a pot-fueled Wiccan orgy.
She spend three days at a pot-fueled Wiccan orgy and still manages to be a devout Christian? I'm impressed.
(yes, I know what you meant. But as Barbie should have said, "Grammar is hard, and dangling modifiers are a bitch.")
Yes, they can. You just need the Soviet Russia model, where you turn the entire country into a prison. Or the German Democratic Republic model, with half the population watching the other half.
...by the fact that China had to request that they not talk about it. China had to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" even to avoid talking about it.
"There is no hose" OR "there are no hoses," would be correct. Also your first sentence should really be two. Cheers, Your friendly neighborhood usage nerd.
Upon further review, my original sentence stands. The use of the semicolon is standard. The use of the singular "There's" with the plural "hoses and hydraulics" is not, but the idea I'm trying to get across is that I'm denying the singular concept of a hydraulic throttle system, while using the plural words "hoses and hydraulics" to maintain parallelism. It wouldn't work with "There is", but the contraction maintains euphony despite the formal disagreement in number.
But the emergency brake is still by cable and emergency brakes are required by lawn in some areas so they are installed on all vehicles. Why the driver did not pull the ebrake when a passenger had over a minute to call 911 is beyond me, I'm guessing he thought he could regain control over the vehicle so this is still driver error.
I doubt most emergency brakes can overpower a car's engine. They're only on two wheels, there's no vacuum assist and the mechanical advantage is awful. Besides, since they're typically on the rear wheels, you'd likely spin even if you could apply enough force.
Still, if the throttle was sticking, the obvious thing to do is to get your foot under it and push up. That's what I've done when it happened (was the floor mat in my case, and not a Toyota)
Summary is stupid because there's no hoses and hydraulics in any car throttle system I've seen; if it's not electronic, it's a very simple and reliable steel cable.
Story is stupid because as it admits, the electronics had nothing to do with the problem; the failure was mechanical. The exact same thing could have happened to a cable-operated system.
Now it seems more focus is on disabling DRM, finding vulnerabilities, and exploits. It used to be about extending functionality or modifying devices.
Disabling DRM was always a focus, except for that short time in the 90s when DRM (then called copy protection) was all but dead. There was a whole magazine dedicated to cracking copy protection schemes for the Apple ][, called "Computist" (earlier "Hardcore Computist").
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. In OS X, as an administrator, go to Keychain Access, select "System Roots", and notice CNNIC ROOT in the list. While you're there, may as well do a GET INFO on it, expand the "Trust" setting, and mark it as untrusted.
Suppose CNNIC issued themselves a phony intermediate CA certificate labeled Thawte, and then used that to issue their phony gmail certificate. Would Firefox show the intermediate CA, or the ultimate root? It looks to me like it would show the issuer of the final certificate, i.e. the phony intermediate CA.
Uh, no. It guarantees against eavesdropping as well.
No. They can now put anything on the web _as any name they like_ and verify that the authorized user of that name did so. For instance, they can put up their own "www.gmail.com" site that verifies as real; it can even say the certificate was issued to Google.
All of them. The Chinese one might be the safest to retain.
You sure needed a better lawyer. You don't have to obtain copyright ownership in order to secure a nonexclusive right to distribute a work, and if you'd gotten that from the artist in the first place, your contract would have taken priority over the later one, and you'd have been able to continue printing without actually being evil.
I don't know about art books, but for works of fiction it is NOT typical for an author to sign away his copyright.
Looks reasonable until you get a third of the way into it... where he implies that an eBook should be priced such that eBook sales make up all the production costs of a book, despite the fact that the book is being sold in other editions as well. Then he backs off and handwaves, claiming a few hundred sales (at $9.99) won't even cover the additional cost of making an eBook edition.
I agree Macmillan has the right to put obnoxiously high prices on eBooks (though next time they raise paper book prices, I don't want to hear the often-heard claim about paper and ink prices, since by pricing eBooks sky-high they've already established that production costs don't matter). Personally I think all it will do is price them out of the market; to most people an eBook is a lower-value item than a paper book, and they just aren't going to pay as much for it.
Personally I prefer eBooks to paper books, but with the caveat that the eBook has to be DRM-free. A DRM-encumbered eBook is worth on close order of $0.
Actually, it does. The monopoly Amazon refers to is precisely the monopoly created by copyright law.
...Woz not only reproduces the problem, he disassembles the firmware, finds the bug, and creates a patch. Which also makes the in-dash cell phone make calls for free, just for old time's sake.
If I were Toyota, I'd listen to Woz. Heck, I'd send out a rep to anyone who didn't sound insane and claimed he could reliably reproduce the problem. In Woz's case, I'd send out my head of engineering, though.
Because the offensive linemen like it that way. Remember their job is to clobber the quarterback... often a white guy, often whom they generally outmass by more than a few pounds. It's cathartic for them.
Certainly not. The relevant definition of performing or displaying a work "publicly" is given in 17 USC 101:
"to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;"
So if you open up your house to all comers, then the performance is public. If you only invite your "social acquaintances", it's not public, even if you charge those acquaintances for food. It's a "public" performance right, not a "commercial" performance right.
The nonsense about TV size only applies once it's already established that a public performance is taking place.
Natural languages are interpreted, not compiled. And there's never been any clear specs for the interpreter. Generally you build an interpreter and language producer by training a neural network with the language, but not against any reference interpreter/producer... no, you do it against many different nth generation neural networks. And then you wonder why you have such a mess.
I see your phonebook edition and raise you the three-ring binder edition (Which I still have; I no longer have the phonebook edition, though). I used (and learned C on) Megamax C on a Lisa 2/10 running MacWorks.
While the Mac wasn't locked down like the iPhone, neither was it anywhere near as open as the Apple II series or the IBM PC. No programming environment built in, no command line, no card slots. It was the first embodiment of Steve Jobs's ideal of computer-as-appliance.
Then you misunderstood. The most recent noun for the modifying clause in question was "Christian", which was part of a phrase modifying the most recent noun "client". The clause "that she spent the last three days at a pot-fueled Wiccan orgy." was intended to modify the subject of the whole sentence ("Someone"). It was not the Christian client who went to the orgy.
It's legitimate if they're actually doing research. It's not legitimate if they're just brainstorming a bunch of ideas based on the current state of the art and then patenting everything which comes out of the brainstorming session.
Long term, they're an ongoing maintenance expense.
The paradox is that if the technology is really improving quickly, it pays to wait to invest in it.
Ah, an honest hair-shirt environmentalist. How refreshing.
And that's pretty messed up. A sues B, and they come to a settlement which extinguishes C's rights without his input.
She spend three days at a pot-fueled Wiccan orgy and still manages to be a devout Christian? I'm impressed. (yes, I know what you meant. But as Barbie should have said, "Grammar is hard, and dangling modifiers are a bitch.")
Try Australia; they'll welcome anyone who passes their entrance exam, which simply consists of subduing a crocodile with your bare hands.
Yes, they can. You just need the Soviet Russia model, where you turn the entire country into a prison. Or the German Democratic Republic model, with half the population watching the other half.
...by the fact that China had to request that they not talk about it. China had to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" even to avoid talking about it.
Upon further review, my original sentence stands. The use of the semicolon is standard. The use of the singular "There's" with the plural "hoses and hydraulics" is not, but the idea I'm trying to get across is that I'm denying the singular concept of a hydraulic throttle system, while using the plural words "hoses and hydraulics" to maintain parallelism. It wouldn't work with "There is", but the contraction maintains euphony despite the formal disagreement in number.
I doubt most emergency brakes can overpower a car's engine. They're only on two wheels, there's no vacuum assist and the mechanical advantage is awful. Besides, since they're typically on the rear wheels, you'd likely spin even if you could apply enough force.
Still, if the throttle was sticking, the obvious thing to do is to get your foot under it and push up. That's what I've done when it happened (was the floor mat in my case, and not a Toyota)
Summary is stupid because there's no hoses and hydraulics in any car throttle system I've seen; if it's not electronic, it's a very simple and reliable steel cable.
Story is stupid because as it admits, the electronics had nothing to do with the problem; the failure was mechanical. The exact same thing could have happened to a cable-operated system.
Disabling DRM was always a focus, except for that short time in the 90s when DRM (then called copy protection) was all but dead. There was a whole magazine dedicated to cracking copy protection schemes for the Apple ][, called "Computist" (earlier "Hardcore Computist").