Rational thinking is not something that is unique to the western world you know. I haven't met any single rational thinking individual, be him from the west or east who had problems with evolution.
Yes but not every where in the world, do these idiots get powers bestowed upon them to meddle in science. That phenomenon seems to be very unique to USA.
Actually you have 3 options
1) full address i.e. http://www.host.com/
2) full host i.e. www.host.com
3) 2nd level doamin host.com
But you are right they need to take in to consideration, non US sites , may be you can raise a support request with Noscript's author.
Actually these days NoScript has an option to automatically grant temporary permissions to the 2nd level domain.
It works perfectly for your case, sites which require scripts to run, usually host them on the same domain as the pages, so
temporary permission to the 2nd level domain does the trick for them. Any ad related contents they host are usually on different hosts than their own, so these get blocked by noscript conveniently. Win-Win
Like photos I took from my digital camera of places I like to visit ?
And to all those suggesting it might be a DMA issue , seriously when was the last time you used a desktop disk that didn't have DMA turned on ? Under original vista, file copying was dead slow, under SP1 things got a lot better, but it still feels slow compared to XP or Linux.
As for the pre-fetching things in RAM, Linux or XP are much snappier even without pre-fetching .
I don't think Vista has a big stability problem, but it really is a resource hog.
On my box, Vista eats up 1GB of RAM doing absolutely nothing, even with Areo turned off and
all effects etc disabled.
Compared to this, I can run on the same Box, Ubuntu 8.10 + Windows XP (inside Virtual Box) under 750MB, really no kidding.
And that too with Compiz and every thing.
Under Ubuntu I can run quite a lot of applications simultaneously without loading the box too much, while Vista is brought down on its knees even when copying big files around.
All the interesting controversy aside, cross vendor migration is [obviously] a good thing for customers because it avoids platform lock-in
Well almost all VM products barring VirtualPC do indeed supoort running the same VM image on across various vendor platforms, in fact that is the whole point of a VM , isn't it ?
The fact to highlight is that the migration was done of a live VM without disrupting the VM's operations.
Yes, but people who usually log on to broadband routers, should in theory be smart enough to know that self-signed certs are by default not trusted, and need to be added to the Brower's CA file.
So the warning is not going to scare them, is it ?
And what's preventing the employees from releasing the said source code to the outside world ? apart from getting fired of course ?
From what I know of GPL, the company can't say "Here's the source under GPL, but don't distribute it".
So the employees or for that matter any party which obtains the source code from the company is perfectly within their legal rights to distribute the code to the outside world .
That was my implied point, the author of the article should be complaining about the trustworthiness aspect of the SSL, and not mozilla's policy about accepting self signed certificates.
As things stand today, SSL means 2 things a) encryption and b) trust (i.e. the site is what it claims it is). And to provide the part b, it relies on the concept of CAs. Now whether this is a good thing or just a money grabbing policy by the big CAs is a totally different thing, but what Mozilla is doing is nothing wrong.
May be they can have a easier way to import a self-signed certificate, rather than having to go through 3/4 clicks as it stands now, but I sure wouldn't want that warning to go away the first time.
I am completely aware that all it takes to buy a certificate is money, but that is not mozilla's or SSL's fault, it is rather the fault of the companies behind the CA business.
wouldn't implementing what the author suggest, defeat the very purpose of having a CA ? SSL is not just for encryption you know. There is a little thing called 'trust' which pays a big part in it too.
Check out Wicket, been using it for more than a year and absolutely love it. I have managed to do some pretty slick javascript based UI, without touching a single line of javascript.
All the templates are done in HTML and code is in Java. Can't get any simpler than that.
The problem arises when you are using Linux in environments which must meet certain Government (SOX etc) , Industry standard (PCI etc) requirements on security.
To meet these requirements you must routinely audit your systems and when you audit your systems, you need to classify security related bugs (vulnerabilities ) found, and having clearly marked security related bugs, will help these auditors/tools do a better job.
May be for a kernel developer , security related bugs are on the same level as any other bugs, but for an end user of the Linux system, it will definitely be the most important bug. Otherwise how are Linux vendors supposed to create security-fix only updates ? Or do you expect every one to blindly upgrade the kernel every time a new point release comes out ?
I have been so used to goolgling for stuff, that I hardly see a point in switching my search engine.
1) Google comes up with relevant results for 99.99% of my needs.
2) Their search page and subsequent results page is very easy to use, has no
flashly graphics, the sponsored ads are clearly marked and never really mingle with the
actual searches.
Not that I am saying yahoo's search is any less in quality, but the inertia for me has set in, and
unless google does something stupid, like making the whole website flash/silverlight/java-applet based,
Why should I switch ?
Will sniffing work if there is a switch involved.
I thought switching makes sniffing impossible.
Well there is the ARP Cache poisoning but, that would involve an extra step.
If there is switching involved, then merely putting a NIC card in promiscuous mode won't help, will it ?
Slashdot Mirror
Rational thinking is not something that is unique to the western world you know. I haven't met any single rational thinking individual, be him from the west or east who had problems with evolution.
Yes but not every where in the world, do these idiots get powers bestowed upon them to meddle in science. That phenomenon seems to be very unique to USA.
Actually you have 3 options
1) full address i.e. http://www.host.com/
2) full host i.e. www.host.com
3) 2nd level doamin host.com
But you are right they need to take in to consideration, non US sites , may be you can raise a support request with Noscript's author.
Actually these days NoScript has an option to automatically grant temporary permissions to the 2nd level domain. It works perfectly for your case, sites which require scripts to run, usually host them on the same domain as the pages, so temporary permission to the 2nd level domain does the trick for them. Any ad related contents they host are usually on different hosts than their own, so these get blocked by noscript conveniently. Win-Win
And just to play the devil's advocate, should they ?
I mean think about it from their point of view
Like photos I took from my digital camera of places I like to visit ? And to all those suggesting it might be a DMA issue , seriously when was the last time you used a desktop disk that didn't have DMA turned on ? Under original vista, file copying was dead slow, under SP1 things got a lot better, but it still feels slow compared to XP or Linux. As for the pre-fetching things in RAM, Linux or XP are much snappier even without pre-fetching .
I don't think Vista has a big stability problem, but it really is a resource hog. On my box, Vista eats up 1GB of RAM doing absolutely nothing, even with Areo turned off and all effects etc disabled. Compared to this, I can run on the same Box, Ubuntu 8.10 + Windows XP (inside Virtual Box) under 750MB, really no kidding. And that too with Compiz and every thing. Under Ubuntu I can run quite a lot of applications simultaneously without loading the box too much, while Vista is brought down on its knees even when copying big files around.
A 6 Digit /. ID trashing a 3 Digit ID. For goodness sake man where are your manners ?
They will have to try real hard to up this one, even with all the cheesy musicals and all.
The fact to highlight is that the migration was done of a live VM without disrupting the VM's operations.
So the warning is not going to scare them, is it ?
Like tryout various local exploits to gain root access...
That was such a sub-par joke.
may be you should go back to NOT buying over priced, over hyped, vendor locked devices.
So the employees or for that matter any party which obtains the source code from the company is perfectly within their legal rights to distribute the code to the outside world .
Or am I missing something ?
That argument doesn't make sense. If they develop extra features in house and don't distribute it, then how are they getting a competitive advantage ?
With apologies to Issac Asimov, What does Issac Asimov have to do with Chemistry ?
That was my implied point, the author of the article should be complaining about the trustworthiness aspect of the SSL, and not mozilla's policy about accepting self signed certificates. As things stand today, SSL means 2 things a) encryption and b) trust (i.e. the site is what it claims it is). And to provide the part b, it relies on the concept of CAs. Now whether this is a good thing or just a money grabbing policy by the big CAs is a totally different thing, but what Mozilla is doing is nothing wrong. May be they can have a easier way to import a self-signed certificate, rather than having to go through 3/4 clicks as it stands now, but I sure wouldn't want that warning to go away the first time. I am completely aware that all it takes to buy a certificate is money, but that is not mozilla's or SSL's fault, it is rather the fault of the companies behind the CA business.
wouldn't implementing what the author suggest, defeat the very purpose of having a CA ? SSL is not just for encryption you know. There is a little thing called 'trust' which pays a big part in it too.
Does the constitution apply to even US citizens any more ? I am not so sure.
All the templates are done in HTML and code is in Java. Can't get any simpler than that.
The problem arises when you are using Linux in environments which must meet certain Government (SOX etc) , Industry standard (PCI etc) requirements on security. To meet these requirements you must routinely audit your systems and when you audit your systems, you need to classify security related bugs (vulnerabilities ) found, and having clearly marked security related bugs, will help these auditors/tools do a better job. May be for a kernel developer , security related bugs are on the same level as any other bugs, but for an end user of the Linux system, it will definitely be the most important bug. Otherwise how are Linux vendors supposed to create security-fix only updates ? Or do you expect every one to blindly upgrade the kernel every time a new point release comes out ?
I have been so used to goolgling for stuff, that I hardly see a point in switching my search engine. 1) Google comes up with relevant results for 99.99% of my needs. 2) Their search page and subsequent results page is very easy to use, has no flashly graphics, the sponsored ads are clearly marked and never really mingle with the actual searches. Not that I am saying yahoo's search is any less in quality, but the inertia for me has set in, and unless google does something stupid, like making the whole website flash/silverlight/java-applet based, Why should I switch ?
Yes , bad mouthing a company without knowing anything about it, that's the way we can get companies to be more OSS friendly. Way to go.
Will sniffing work if there is a switch involved. I thought switching makes sniffing impossible. Well there is the ARP Cache poisoning but, that would involve an extra step. If there is switching involved, then merely putting a NIC card in promiscuous mode won't help, will it ?