Three Issues: 1.) Monocultures Suck: Experienced web developers know that no browser is without its deviations from W3C specifications. One of the ways that this becomes evident is when the developer observes inconsistent behavior from one browser to another. Bug reports get filed, and hopefully, just hopefully, if the browser vendor is not overrun with arrogant "WONTFIX" jerks, the behavior is corrected to conform with the standards document. In a monoculture, this doesn't happen as often, and gradually, the sole-surviving implementation displaces the documented standard, creating a significant barrier to the creation of alternative implementations in the event that people start to crave competition again. Instead of implementing the standard, an alternative browser now has to reverse engineer and mimic all of the bugs in the dominant rendering engine, so as to be compatible with the same web content.
2.) Mozilla happens to be a "Protector of the Web", and the "Narrative" is Appropriate: One of the great virtues of Mozilla is that, in addition to being a non-proffit organization, they aren't an operator of any major web properties. As such, they aren't subject to the conflicts of interest that you often see with companies like Google and Microsoft, who are often tempted to tailor their browsers to their commercial interests: interests that may be at odds those of the user.
3.) As of early 2019, Firefox Significantly Outperforms Chromium: Has Auchenberg even tried Firefox in the past year? Ever since the release of Firefox Quantum, Firefox has been blowing the pants off Chrome. Better yet, its Servo rendering engine is written in Rust, a modern language with safety guarantees that aren't achievable in C++. Mozila's leadership with Rust points to the possibility that we will one day be able to have some confidence in the security of our computing environments. Sticking with C++ is not the path forward if we hope to ever fully trust complex software like browsers.
I don't know about the rest of slashdot readers, but from my point of view, Chrome is a great browser for apathetic users who don't have very sophisticated expectations in terms of extensibility and privacy features. With Firefox you have a much richer selection of add-ons and other niceties like, for instance, the ability to synchronize your data to your own server, rather than being entirely dependent on someone's so-called "cloud". Whereas Mozilla remains committed to a decentralized web, Google has managed to progressively blur the lines between browser and web property.
I suppose Chrome is not as horrific as whatever Facebook might come up with if they ever decided to make a browser, but that's not saying much for Chrome. I'm a user of many Google products, but when it comes to browsers I'll be sticking with the content-neutral product that prioritizes my freedom and privacy - Firefox!
Yours is a commonly-cited, but ultimately fallacious argument. The difference between getting the key through a back door and getting it through coercion is that when you force me to give it up I know about the breach of my privacy. It's also more likely to require a proper court subpoena under those circumstances. Even if I ultimately give in to the interrogation, at least I know what I've lost.
Furthermore, let's say the NSA captures my drive, but because of my line of work I'm in command of a nuclear submarine. Better that they have to get the key from me than get a backdoor from Fujitsu which retrieves it out of secret registers in the ASIC or exploit some intentional vulnerability in the implementation.
Also, I'm an escape artist, and a sailor, so I'm good at untying knots.:P
your friends at the NSA ask Fujitsu for the back door.
I'm going to stick with kernel-mode volume encryption.
ride a train, bus, or bicycle instead!
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
The point of this system is to provide a disincentive for unnecessary driving into Manhattan. If that means stripping Escalade-driving cagers of their privacy, so be it! I'm generally concerned about surveillance, but not that of bridge and tunnel barbarians. Since NYC has a good mass transit system, unnecessary can pretty much be defined as driving anything other than a delivery truck, bus, construction vehicle, etc. Suburban drivers need to start taking the train or move. I don't have much sympathy for owners of McMansions living in Sprawlville, NJ. Ride a train, bus, or bicycle, and stop giving all of us asthma!
Obviously, but still, why should we further inconvenience ourselves? BD+ isn't necessarily going to be easy to compromise anyway. I'm sure it will happen eventually, but I want to be able to play HD titles with free software *today*, not in 8 years.
The unfortunate thing about Blu-Ray is its BD+ DRM feature, which has not yet been turned on. While Blu-Ray and HD-DVD both use AACS, Blu-Ray's BD+ is an additional layer of DRM which has not yet been broken. The reason you aren't hearing about this is that people think Blu-Ray has been freed to the same extent that HD-DVD has, when this really isn't the case. All it will take is for Blu-Ray Disc publishers to start using BD+ on their titles (which we can expect to see in a few months) and at that point our hopes of ever seeing free HD disc player software will be dashed once again.
For now, as a user who wants to play HD content with free software, I'm going to advocate the use of HD-DVD and not Blu-Ray.
The banks are not using secure authentication systems and WiFi users are getting blamed?
Tell me.. When did it become my fault that someone can download tens of thousands of customer credit cards? Perhaps if these credit cards had been ditched long before the Internet we wouldn't be having that problem. Kerberos, challenge-response, PKI, and two-factor authentication devices have all been available for quite some time.
Someone tell the Secret Service to stop monitoring IRC connections and go after lazy banks instead, or something:]
I'd love to see PoE used for encrypted bidirectional RFID readers and physical (door) access control. Each door would require only one UTP cable, providing power for both the reader and the door strike. I'm not sure how this would apply to magnetic locks.
The less parallel wiring a building needs the better.
Such a product would also enable the battery backup of an entire building's access control system - a single UPS for the ethernet switches.
Yeah. I really have no sympathy for companies that want to enter the telecommunications sector who aren't willing to pony up the cash to build their own infrastructure. People like to make it look like these cable and telephone companies have absolute monopolies over the last mile, when in reality, all it really takes to increase competition is for someone to make their OWN investment and build out their own network.
With laws that make all last mile infrastructure public domain, it's hard to see how anyone would want to build any new networks these days.
Let's get passed this nonsensical regulation. If you want to compete with the local telco or cable provider, install your own wires!
The only real issues are the public right of way laws. I really don't see how the fact that the telephone company runs its wires over public land is sufficient justification for making them share it, tho. If the public should be compensated for the telco's telephone poles and underground conduits, let it be in the form of a reasonable public land use fee, or permit process.
That being said, time to get back to homework. I apologize for not having enough time to write something more eloquent or persuasive, but I thought this short rambling would convey the general idea.
I just got back on Wednesday from a journey around China. I attempted to use the Internet service in from the business center of the Guilin Sheraton Hotel, and barely downloaded a single page of html. This was google, and after 7 minutes of waiting. Images never downloaded for some reason.
I was able to confirm my understanding that all HTTP traffic in China is channeled through centralized filtering proxy servers. It can't even be called Internet Access. The proxy server would not handle anything other than HTTP and SMTP(which didn't work when I tried to send a message). I wanted to try using PuTTY to do ssh to my server at home in order to check up on email and other things, but this was impossible, even when I tried to configure the client to use the proxy.
There is no way for inhabitants of China to do normal IP routing between each other and the rest of the world. I suppose one could set something up to tunnel IP over HTTP, but other than that, they're out of luck. I would have rather had a straight ol' 2400 baud PPP connection to my U.S. ISP.
I understand that the Chinese government has good totalitarian reasons for censoring the Net, (although they are moving towards reform) but the system they use should be passive, and not involve tcp proxy servers.
I've seen systems that can simply monitor and replace ethernet packets that contain discedent HTTP data.
Motorola seems to have taken care of this problem already with their built-in planned obsolesense "feature". Ever wonder why talking and listening on your motorola phone will never be as clear as it was during the first 3 months of use? With every motorola phone I have had, this question has arisen. The only phone of mine that didn't do this was the micro tac elite anolog. That phone was most likely produced before this wonderful feature was invented.
There should be a first-come first-serve policy. Registrants with the intent of domain squating should have their domains revoked.
Domains and anything associated with dns are just arbitrary names for systems and should have nothing to do with actual trademarks. It's really sad how big corporations can get away with this type of crap.
I am one of those sorts that believes in putting everything on the network. Everything should have an IP. I plan to have the door to my room authenticate off of my linux server soon. As for security... just use camera flash memory for operating software... Its flashable and can be easily mounted by most operating systems.
Exactlly... Rather disturbing how slashdot has sold out to these sorts of readers who show absolutely know knowledge of routable protocols. I haven't even seen efforts to verify the other questionable claims that the author of that article made. While I haven't had the time to read the RFC as of this point, I can see that it isn't probable that a lot of what he says is actually true.
Haven't Slashdot readers discovered the technical inacuracy in this claim?. IP is a protocol designed from the ground up for it's ability to be routed to certain subnets. A machine on one subnet can communicate with a machine on another subnet simply by knowing only the route to the gateway of another subnet. I find it technically impossible to assign IPv6 addresses on a basis of ethernet addresses. While a machine's IP address is dependent on the subnet to which it is connected to, MAC addresses are unique to the machine itself.
Well... Copyleft mentions the possibility of ties on their site, but it has been a long time since that was suggested and I have seen nothing. I am not quite in on the business end of things just yet, but my school has a dress code and some geek ties would be good to have. Anyway... maybe someone will get the right idea and start producing these things.
Slashdot Mirror
Three Issues:
1.) Monocultures Suck: Experienced web developers know that no browser is without its deviations from W3C specifications. One of the ways that this becomes evident is when the developer observes inconsistent behavior from one browser to another. Bug reports get filed, and hopefully, just hopefully, if the browser vendor is not overrun with arrogant "WONTFIX" jerks, the behavior is corrected to conform with the standards document. In a monoculture, this doesn't happen as often, and gradually, the sole-surviving implementation displaces the documented standard, creating a significant barrier to the creation of alternative implementations in the event that people start to crave competition again. Instead of implementing the standard, an alternative browser now has to reverse engineer and mimic all of the bugs in the dominant rendering engine, so as to be compatible with the same web content.
2.) Mozilla happens to be a "Protector of the Web", and the "Narrative" is Appropriate: One of the great virtues of Mozilla is that, in addition to being a non-proffit organization, they aren't an operator of any major web properties. As such, they aren't subject to the conflicts of interest that you often see with companies like Google and Microsoft, who are often tempted to tailor their browsers to their commercial interests: interests that may be at odds those of the user.
3.) As of early 2019, Firefox Significantly Outperforms Chromium: Has Auchenberg even tried Firefox in the past year? Ever since the release of Firefox Quantum, Firefox has been blowing the pants off Chrome. Better yet, its Servo rendering engine is written in Rust, a modern language with safety guarantees that aren't achievable in C++. Mozila's leadership with Rust points to the possibility that we will one day be able to have some confidence in the security of our computing environments. Sticking with C++ is not the path forward if we hope to ever fully trust complex software like browsers.
I don't know about the rest of slashdot readers, but from my point of view, Chrome is a great browser for apathetic users who don't have very sophisticated expectations in terms of extensibility and privacy features. With Firefox you have a much richer selection of add-ons and other niceties like, for instance, the ability to synchronize your data to your own server, rather than being entirely dependent on someone's so-called "cloud". Whereas Mozilla remains committed to a decentralized web, Google has managed to progressively blur the lines between browser and web property.
I suppose Chrome is not as horrific as whatever Facebook might come up with if they ever decided to make a browser, but that's not saying much for Chrome. I'm a user of many Google products, but when it comes to browsers I'll be sticking with the content-neutral product that prioritizes my freedom and privacy - Firefox!
Yours is a commonly-cited, but ultimately fallacious argument. The difference between getting the key through a back door and getting it through coercion is that when you force me to give it up I know about the breach of my privacy. It's also more likely to require a proper court subpoena under those circumstances. Even if I ultimately give in to the interrogation, at least I know what I've lost.
:P
Furthermore, let's say the NSA captures my drive, but because of my line of work I'm in command of a nuclear submarine. Better that they have to get the key from me than get a backdoor from Fujitsu which retrieves it out of secret registers in the ASIC or exploit some intentional vulnerability in the implementation.
Also, I'm an escape artist, and a sailor, so I'm good at untying knots.
your friends at the NSA ask Fujitsu for the back door.
I'm going to stick with kernel-mode volume encryption.
The point of this system is to provide a disincentive for unnecessary driving into Manhattan. If that means stripping Escalade-driving cagers of their privacy, so be it! I'm generally concerned about surveillance, but not that of bridge and tunnel barbarians. Since NYC has a good mass transit system, unnecessary can pretty much be defined as driving anything other than a delivery truck, bus, construction vehicle, etc. Suburban drivers need to start taking the train or move. I don't have much sympathy for owners of McMansions living in Sprawlville, NJ. Ride a train, bus, or bicycle, and stop giving all of us asthma!
Obviously, but still, why should we further inconvenience ourselves? BD+ isn't necessarily going to be easy to compromise anyway. I'm sure it will happen eventually, but I want to be able to play HD titles with free software *today*, not in 8 years.
The unfortunate thing about Blu-Ray is its BD+ DRM feature, which has not yet been turned on. While Blu-Ray and HD-DVD both use AACS, Blu-Ray's BD+ is an additional layer of DRM which has not yet been broken. The reason you aren't hearing about this is that people think Blu-Ray has been freed to the same extent that HD-DVD has, when this really isn't the case. All it will take is for Blu-Ray Disc publishers to start using BD+ on their titles (which we can expect to see in a few months) and at that point our hopes of ever seeing free HD disc player software will be dashed once again.
For now, as a user who wants to play HD content with free software, I'm going to advocate the use of HD-DVD and not Blu-Ray.
The banks are not using secure authentication systems and WiFi users are getting blamed?
:]
Tell me.. When did it become my fault that someone can download tens of thousands of customer credit cards? Perhaps if these credit cards had been ditched long before the Internet we wouldn't be having that problem. Kerberos, challenge-response, PKI, and two-factor authentication devices have all been available for quite some time.
Someone tell the Secret Service to stop monitoring IRC connections and go after lazy banks instead, or something
I'd love to see PoE used for encrypted bidirectional RFID readers and physical (door) access control. Each door would require only one UTP cable, providing power for both the reader and the door strike. I'm not sure how this would apply to magnetic locks.
The less parallel wiring a building needs the better.
Such a product would also enable the battery backup of an entire building's access control system - a single UPS for the ethernet switches.
Yeah. I really have no sympathy for companies that want to enter the telecommunications sector who aren't willing to pony up the cash to build their own infrastructure. People like to make it look like these cable and telephone companies have absolute monopolies over the last mile, when in reality, all it really takes to increase competition is for someone to make their OWN investment and build out their own network.
With laws that make all last mile infrastructure public domain, it's hard to see how anyone would want to build any new networks these days.
Let's get passed this nonsensical regulation. If you want to compete with the local telco or cable provider, install your own wires!
The only real issues are the public right of way laws. I really don't see how the fact that the telephone company runs its wires over public land is sufficient justification for making them share it, tho. If the public should be compensated for the telco's telephone poles and underground conduits, let it be in the form of a reasonable public land use fee, or permit process.
That being said, time to get back to homework. I apologize for not having enough time to write something more eloquent or persuasive, but I thought this short rambling would convey the general idea.
is a nice little wireless freenet in several australian cities/areas.
Ouch. Now that's really egregious on my part. Make that "dissident."
yeah.. actually.. I should have written "dissedent." I'm really dependent on spell checkers to get anything right.
Sorry for the confusion.
I just got back on Wednesday from a journey around China. I attempted to use the Internet service in from the business center of the Guilin Sheraton Hotel, and barely downloaded a single page of html. This was google, and after 7 minutes of waiting. Images never downloaded for some reason.
I was able to confirm my understanding that all HTTP traffic in China is channeled through centralized filtering proxy servers. It can't even be called Internet Access. The proxy server would not handle anything other than HTTP and SMTP(which didn't work when I tried to send a message). I wanted to try using PuTTY to do ssh to my server at home in order to check up on email and other things, but this was impossible, even when I tried to configure the client to use the proxy.
There is no way for inhabitants of China to do normal IP routing between each other and the rest of the world. I suppose one could set something up to tunnel IP over HTTP, but other than that, they're out of luck. I would have rather had a straight ol' 2400 baud PPP connection to my U.S. ISP.
I understand that the Chinese government has good totalitarian reasons for censoring the Net, (although they are moving towards reform) but the system they use should be passive, and not involve tcp proxy servers.
I've seen systems that can simply monitor and replace ethernet packets that contain discedent HTTP data.
Motorola seems to have taken care of this problem already with their built-in planned obsolesense "feature". Ever wonder why talking and listening on your motorola phone will never be as clear as it was during the first 3 months of use? With every motorola phone I have had, this question has arisen. The only phone of mine that didn't do this was the micro tac elite anolog. That phone was most likely produced before this wonderful feature was invented.
There should be a first-come first-serve policy.
Registrants with the intent of domain squating should have their domains revoked.
Domains and anything associated with dns are just arbitrary names for systems and should have nothing to do with actual trademarks. It's really sad how big corporations can get away with this type of crap.
PC104 is a really good guess. I need to look through my WinSystems pc104 catalog now. Maybe I'll find a pc104 modem that looks similar.
I am one of those sorts that believes in putting everything on the network. Everything should have an IP. I plan to have the door to my room authenticate off of my linux server soon. As for security... just use camera flash memory for operating software... Its flashable and can be easily mounted by most operating systems.
Exactlly... Rather disturbing how slashdot has sold out to these sorts of readers who show absolutely know knowledge of routable protocols. I haven't even seen efforts to verify the other questionable claims that the author of that article made. While I haven't had the time to read the RFC as of this point, I can see that it isn't probable that a lot of what he says is actually true.
Haven't Slashdot readers discovered the technical inacuracy in this claim?. IP is a protocol designed from the ground up for it's ability to be routed to certain subnets. A machine on one subnet can communicate with a machine on another subnet simply by knowing only the route to the gateway of another subnet. I find it technically impossible to assign IPv6 addresses on a basis of ethernet addresses. While a machine's IP address is dependent on the subnet to which it is connected to, MAC addresses are unique to the machine itself.
That aside, I would suggest that you run only the services on your system that are absolutely necessary for your application.
Well... Copyleft mentions the possibility of ties on their site, but it has been a long time since that was suggested and I have seen nothing. I am not quite in on the business end of things just yet, but my school has a dress code and some geek ties would be good to have. Anyway... maybe someone will get the right idea and start producing these things.
- Aaron