It seems Sky are very quick to trumpet in a press release how wonderful they are now that they've decided not to continue handing over thousands of customer details to a company with woefully inadequate security procedures (for now). However personally I'd be more impressed if they'd verified that the details would be handled securely before handing them over and getting them leaked in the first place.
I guess the main lesson for us Brits here is to make sure all your pornography is hardcore enough that it's illegal in the UK, then you can't be held in breach of copyright for sharing it. You will of course break some other laws, but there isn't much that's legal here these days anyway!
I doubt this will be the first MMO to make big promises and then disappoint. In fact it won't even be the first Star Wars MMO to make big promises and then disappoint.
I get the feeling from the write up that describes Deckard Cain as one of the first victims that there's a good chance he might be playing a major villain in Diablo 3 instead of helping the player.
We can only hope that the opportunity will be there to smash his face in with some kind of large mace, ending the torment of his fake Sean Connery accent.
Why is the statement so ridiculous? Asian scripts can be represented in UTF-8 using the basic multilingual plane, however this increases the HTML file size (3 bytes per character for these scripts). What I think he's saying is that using compressed output from a web server can mitigate this increase.
I get exactly the same issue with my gmail account, even though I've never given out its address since my normal mail is redirected to it via my domain, and the name isn't easily guessable. Seems rather suspicious.
I don't understand it to be honest... although most of the sentences seem to make sense individually, I don't really follow the logic. For a start it all seems to be based on the flawed assumption that users always make the same response to all dialog boxes. Why would one assume this? Even a complete idiot might select either option randomly, or mash their fist on the keyboard with the same effect. It's even possible that some highly advanced users might read the information and act on it accordingly!
Anyway, assuming that ridiculous assumption is correct, the author then makes another ridiculous assumption, that if you always say yes to dialog boxes, that means your computer is infected with all kinds of malware. They then decide it would be a good idea to root kit this PC and encrypt network traffic to it. I'm not quite sure what the point of this is either since the machine would have to decrypt the traffic for it to be any use, so any malware present on the machine could still have access to the traffic. I think they could be saying that the point of this is to protect their host machine from your horrible horrible malware. To be honest if a web host is so vulnerable that malware infected clients visiting it cause them to catch it to like some kind of electronic herpes, you have even bigger problems to worry about than the inevitable lawsuits from arbitrarily rootkitting your client's PCs.
In short, it's a long time since I've read such complete nonsense, even given Slashdot's normal submission quality. If anyone managed to follow the article's logic, perhaps you could explain it to me, and possibly also tell me which parallel universe you're from so I can cross it off my holiday list.
So that you can have endless fun dealing with the CSS layout bugs that plague many browsers, but especially older versions of IE, and coming up with dirty hacks around them which you wouldn't have had to do if you'd used tables in the first place. I particularly like the tiny 2 pixel gaps that magically appear between divs under certain circumstances older IE versions and are next to impossible to get rid of.
The problem with current versions of CSS is that on 3/4 of web pages it is used mainly to facilitate a column layout, which is something it wasn't originally designed to do, and is very bad at. Things like making several columns grow to equal lengths, or appear to do so, require almost endless trickery in CSS, especially if consistant display between different browsers is required, which it generally is.
Whatever's in my Abit IP35-pro (P35 chipset based) motherboard with a quad core P4 and an Nvidia 8800GTS card that prevents almost any distribution from installing straight off the CD/DVD would be a good start. I've tried a number of current distributions and they've all hung or crashed in various weird ways.
Not that installing Windows was a picnic either of course, the only way I could coax XP into installing was to manually add RAID drivers to the installation disk since of course I don't have a floppy drive and the evil thing demands one.
Because digital data is made of 0s and 1s and no violence exists between the peaceful people of Zeropia and the Onezonites. As such it escapes being rated.
Not sure exactly how they're going to implement this, since I can't see the option in my account as yet. I would imagine they'd have to limit it somehow though, since for accounts with thousands and thousands of emails sitting around in them like mine, the size of even downloading the headers via IMAP would be fairly prohibitive?
I would guess they'll limit support to a few hundred of the latest mails only or something like that, but if anyone has checked it out and has any information that'd be useful.
You can record more than 30 seconds in the old sound recorder by recording some silence and then copying/pasting it a lot until the sound clip reaches the desired length. Another Vista feature down the pan! I actually find myself using this a scary amount when I haven't installed any proper recording software on a machine. Quite why they imposed a 30 second limit in the first place when the program can clearly cope with clips of any length is a good question though.
That does have an impact on security, but mostly because the features it's now necessary to be backwards compatible with were never designed to be secure or stable in the first place in the old home versions of Windows. For example a lot of Linux features are designed to work in the same manner as old UNIX equivalents, but there seem to be less gaping holes in its security despite providing its own support for legacy code and in some cases extremely old hardware platforms.
This kind of cruft certainly doesn't make an OS any easier to secure, but in the interests of creating a reasonably stable platform for developers, you can't just re-write the entire feature set every few years and expect software to be ported. It seems to me that if well enough thought through it's very possible to make a secure OS while remaining mostly backwards compatible (e.g. by emulating old and insecure features on newer hardware).
I hadn't even seen that thread, perhaps you're not quite the visionary and Slashdot celebrity that you thought. I read it now and while your general sentiment is the same (that chip model numbers aren't very meaningful), the posts in question are hardly identical. I find it strange that you'd be so hostile that you'd make a post here accusing me of copying, especially since you've then decided to point out why you think I'm wrong, points which I would surely have taken on board already had I read your thread.
I hardly think that on a technical news site where articles are read by many many thousands of people, it's inconceivable to you that multiple people could have views on chip naming conventions, and express them in articles related to that subject. Independent development of an idea may not have much weight in the patent world at the moment, but it's very much a likelihood in real life.
Maybe it's time to come up with processor names that actually mean something again instead of confusing and usually meaningless numbers? This is especially true for AMD, whose numbers seem to be based around the clock speed an equivalent Intel chip might have run at many years ago when they invented the convention, but Intel's new "random model numbers" naming doesn't seem much better.
Of course old style Megahertz numbering doesn't make much sense these days either, with the proliferation of multi-core processors. I think it would be nice if the chip makers could agree on some kind of general performance benchmark number that could be used in names to make processors more easily comparable. Even some kind of very basic number relating to cores/speed like the 4x2200 for a 4 core, 2.2Ghz chip would be better than the current mess in my opinion though.
No it won't, don't you see? If languages continue to disappear at this rate, we will soon have none left! And without words, how can we attain a first post? The horror... it's unthinkable.
I think even dropping from outer space plus the burns from reentry would still damage a package less than the average UPS delivery. They set a pretty high bar, I'm not sure that mere science is enough to top it.
eBay isn't going to let these potential security issues ruin its core business. As such they're in the process of re-branding from an auction site to more of an online dating service where potential scammers can meet potential scamees.
I don't see how these findings in any way cast doubt on Google's claim that "it respects the rights of copyright holders, and provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted intellectual property". There's a difference between complying with notices to remove copyrighted content and helping copyright holders identify it, and removing 100% of infringing content from the site at all times, by magic.
No matter how good their tools are, with probably thousands (if not tens of thousands) of video submissions per day, it's going to be close to impossible to check them all for potentially copyright infringing material.
Besides, we all know the NLPC must be evil, since their acronym clearly stands for No Laptops Per Child.
Gartner analyst Nick Jones' comments seem particularly confusing. He states "I want something rich enough to deliver applications, that's available from multiple manufacturers, offering a decent range of handsets with corporate features. Linux just falls down on all of those."
For one thing I can't really see how Linux falls down on being "rich enough to deliver applications", and his other points just seem to show that Linux doesn't yet have much market penetration in the mobile market. While this is true, slamming it for that in an article about the Linux entry into the mobile market seems odd. I guess maybe it's just a poorly chosen quote by the author.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems Sky are very quick to trumpet in a press release how wonderful they are now that they've decided not to continue handing over thousands of customer details to a company with woefully inadequate security procedures (for now). However personally I'd be more impressed if they'd verified that the details would be handled securely before handing them over and getting them leaked in the first place.
I guess the main lesson for us Brits here is to make sure all your pornography is hardcore enough that it's illegal in the UK, then you can't be held in breach of copyright for sharing it. You will of course break some other laws, but there isn't much that's legal here these days anyway!
I doubt this will be the first MMO to make big promises and then disappoint. In fact it won't even be the first Star Wars MMO to make big promises and then disappoint.
Indubitably
I get the feeling from the write up that describes Deckard Cain as one of the first victims that there's a good chance he might be playing a major villain in Diablo 3 instead of helping the player. We can only hope that the opportunity will be there to smash his face in with some kind of large mace, ending the torment of his fake Sean Connery accent.
Why is the statement so ridiculous? Asian scripts can be represented in UTF-8 using the basic multilingual plane, however this increases the HTML file size (3 bytes per character for these scripts). What I think he's saying is that using compressed output from a web server can mitigate this increase.
I get exactly the same issue with my gmail account, even though I've never given out its address since my normal mail is redirected to it via my domain, and the name isn't easily guessable. Seems rather suspicious.
I admit it, you're the most macho guy on Slashdot. You can go back to picking out decor now.
I don't understand it to be honest... although most of the sentences seem to make sense individually, I don't really follow the logic. For a start it all seems to be based on the flawed assumption that users always make the same response to all dialog boxes. Why would one assume this? Even a complete idiot might select either option randomly, or mash their fist on the keyboard with the same effect. It's even possible that some highly advanced users might read the information and act on it accordingly!
Anyway, assuming that ridiculous assumption is correct, the author then makes another ridiculous assumption, that if you always say yes to dialog boxes, that means your computer is infected with all kinds of malware. They then decide it would be a good idea to root kit this PC and encrypt network traffic to it. I'm not quite sure what the point of this is either since the machine would have to decrypt the traffic for it to be any use, so any malware present on the machine could still have access to the traffic. I think they could be saying that the point of this is to protect their host machine from your horrible horrible malware. To be honest if a web host is so vulnerable that malware infected clients visiting it cause them to catch it to like some kind of electronic herpes, you have even bigger problems to worry about than the inevitable lawsuits from arbitrarily rootkitting your client's PCs.
In short, it's a long time since I've read such complete nonsense, even given Slashdot's normal submission quality. If anyone managed to follow the article's logic, perhaps you could explain it to me, and possibly also tell me which parallel universe you're from so I can cross it off my holiday list.
So that you can have endless fun dealing with the CSS layout bugs that plague many browsers, but especially older versions of IE, and coming up with dirty hacks around them which you wouldn't have had to do if you'd used tables in the first place. I particularly like the tiny 2 pixel gaps that magically appear between divs under certain circumstances older IE versions and are next to impossible to get rid of. The problem with current versions of CSS is that on 3/4 of web pages it is used mainly to facilitate a column layout, which is something it wasn't originally designed to do, and is very bad at. Things like making several columns grow to equal lengths, or appear to do so, require almost endless trickery in CSS, especially if consistant display between different browsers is required, which it generally is.
Receiving those tiles must have driven him up the wall.
Whatever's in my Abit IP35-pro (P35 chipset based) motherboard with a quad core P4 and an Nvidia 8800GTS card that prevents almost any distribution from installing straight off the CD/DVD would be a good start. I've tried a number of current distributions and they've all hung or crashed in various weird ways.
Not that installing Windows was a picnic either of course, the only way I could coax XP into installing was to manually add RAID drivers to the installation disk since of course I don't have a floppy drive and the evil thing demands one.
Because digital data is made of 0s and 1s and no violence exists between the peaceful people of Zeropia and the Onezonites. As such it escapes being rated.
Not sure exactly how they're going to implement this, since I can't see the option in my account as yet. I would imagine they'd have to limit it somehow though, since for accounts with thousands and thousands of emails sitting around in them like mine, the size of even downloading the headers via IMAP would be fairly prohibitive?
I would guess they'll limit support to a few hundred of the latest mails only or something like that, but if anyone has checked it out and has any information that'd be useful.
You can record more than 30 seconds in the old sound recorder by recording some silence and then copying/pasting it a lot until the sound clip reaches the desired length. Another Vista feature down the pan! I actually find myself using this a scary amount when I haven't installed any proper recording software on a machine. Quite why they imposed a 30 second limit in the first place when the program can clearly cope with clips of any length is a good question though.
That does have an impact on security, but mostly because the features it's now necessary to be backwards compatible with were never designed to be secure or stable in the first place in the old home versions of Windows. For example a lot of Linux features are designed to work in the same manner as old UNIX equivalents, but there seem to be less gaping holes in its security despite providing its own support for legacy code and in some cases extremely old hardware platforms.
This kind of cruft certainly doesn't make an OS any easier to secure, but in the interests of creating a reasonably stable platform for developers, you can't just re-write the entire feature set every few years and expect software to be ported. It seems to me that if well enough thought through it's very possible to make a secure OS while remaining mostly backwards compatible (e.g. by emulating old and insecure features on newer hardware).
It means Tesco can afford good lawyers and would almost certainly win.
I guess the maps would show that the density of Internet connections near Chris Harrison's server was very low, if I could load them.
I hadn't even seen that thread, perhaps you're not quite the visionary and Slashdot celebrity that you thought. I read it now and while your general sentiment is the same (that chip model numbers aren't very meaningful), the posts in question are hardly identical. I find it strange that you'd be so hostile that you'd make a post here accusing me of copying, especially since you've then decided to point out why you think I'm wrong, points which I would surely have taken on board already had I read your thread.
I hardly think that on a technical news site where articles are read by many many thousands of people, it's inconceivable to you that multiple people could have views on chip naming conventions, and express them in articles related to that subject. Independent development of an idea may not have much weight in the patent world at the moment, but it's very much a likelihood in real life.
Maybe it's time to come up with processor names that actually mean something again instead of confusing and usually meaningless numbers? This is especially true for AMD, whose numbers seem to be based around the clock speed an equivalent Intel chip might have run at many years ago when they invented the convention, but Intel's new "random model numbers" naming doesn't seem much better.
Of course old style Megahertz numbering doesn't make much sense these days either, with the proliferation of multi-core processors. I think it would be nice if the chip makers could agree on some kind of general performance benchmark number that could be used in names to make processors more easily comparable. Even some kind of very basic number relating to cores/speed like the 4x2200 for a 4 core, 2.2Ghz chip would be better than the current mess in my opinion though.
No it won't, don't you see? If languages continue to disappear at this rate, we will soon have none left! And without words, how can we attain a first post? The horror... it's unthinkable.
I think even dropping from outer space plus the burns from reentry would still damage a package less than the average UPS delivery. They set a pretty high bar, I'm not sure that mere science is enough to top it.
eBay isn't going to let these potential security issues ruin its core business. As such they're in the process of re-branding from an auction site to more of an online dating service where potential scammers can meet potential scamees.
I don't see how these findings in any way cast doubt on Google's claim that "it respects the rights of copyright holders, and provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted intellectual property". There's a difference between complying with notices to remove copyrighted content and helping copyright holders identify it, and removing 100% of infringing content from the site at all times, by magic.
No matter how good their tools are, with probably thousands (if not tens of thousands) of video submissions per day, it's going to be close to impossible to check them all for potentially copyright infringing material.
Besides, we all know the NLPC must be evil, since their acronym clearly stands for No Laptops Per Child.
For one thing I can't really see how Linux falls down on being "rich enough to deliver applications", and his other points just seem to show that Linux doesn't yet have much market penetration in the mobile market. While this is true, slamming it for that in an article about the Linux entry into the mobile market seems odd. I guess maybe it's just a poorly chosen quote by the author.
*shudders* I still have nightmares about the dreaded Mistake Edition.