So... you listed 3 types of physical things. Passwords are not. If you want your access tokens returned, you make them smart cards or OTP generators. In that case you actually get them back and the person loses access.
So leaving your router wide open is nothing more then visiting a website?
I propose a non-XSS version of this "no frills" attack: obtaining the location of a user who set chrome to tell everyone by default. Run for the hills.
The ripping RedHat / Fedora / everything else because Unbuntu is "so much better" probably started after Canonical was formed.
It could hardly have started before, considering that Ubuntu didn't exist before Canonical.
I'd wager that 90% of all Unbuntu users haven't used anything else, but are certain that it's the best distro in the world because they are implicitly comparing it to Windows.
I've used Slackware, Mandrake, Debian and FreeBSD. Slackware and FreeBSD have convinced me that a proper packaging system is a good idea. Mandrake and FreeBSD have convinced me that proper packaging is a good idea (I wasn't experienced enough back when I started on Slackware to tell if the packaging was done properly). If it wasn't for Ubuntu I'd probably still be on Debian, cursing broken unstable (their release frequency picked up considerably after Ubuntu started setting the pace, I think Debian users have benefited quite a bit from Ubuntu's existence).
So while I haven't used every distro under the sun, I do have some ground to prefer Debian derivatives, Ubuntu in particular, to others.
Modules of 2.30. Module maintenance is over the last two years. The time frame for the commit table isn't explicitly listed. Looking at the modules in 2.30 might mean the full history of the modules involved just as well as 2.28 to 2.30. The later is susceptible to fluctuations, Ubuntu had an upcoming LTS release that would have gobbled up resources for example.
Is this over the lifetime of Gnome or that of Canonical. If it's the former, then your argument doesn't hold water. Yay for statistics without methodology!
Not to mention that Red Hat has been riding on volunteer coattails for all of their existence by this logic. Hell, look at Fedora, it's volunteer packaging and testing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
If you want to pick on Canonical for something, pick on something that isn't an integral part of GNU/Linux distros.
I'd say it's still better than the TV silently failing to pass audio from the (HDMI connected) DVR to the (HDMI connected) surround sound system. I assume it's an DRM issue, but it still took me a while to accept that it won't work. I feel sorry for anyone who is not aware of the DRM...
And by HD you mean 720p, 1080i, 1080p or anything better then 480p? Plenty of people are confused by the fuzzy HD label, many are stuck with 720p TVs for it. Not to mention when it's applied to every other device, HD speakers, sign me up!
Do the "high speed" cables work at high speed for "standard" devices? Because I'd bet that people will pick them up just because they are "faster". More critical people who aren't aware that it's actually different types of cables, not just mostly meaningless marketing, might go for the standard and not be able to take full advantage of their devices.
No, the confusion is not that the names are outlandish, it's (in part) because it's just (apparently) simple descriptions. Electronics are covered with meaningless slogans in the wane of "high speed", how will this manage to different itself from that and actually indicate compatibility?
I guess in a sense it does have different modes. The screenshot is of the "high-level overview mode" where you switch between applications/windows (my favorite part by far, think expose over all of the desktops), start applications, open documents, log out, etc. The typical "working on this-or-that mode" only has a bar on the top (and an optional, collapsible sidebar).
Actually webcams are finally starting to be USB Video Class devices, and just work like USB sticks have for years. You still have to make sure you get one, but the situation is improving.
And I'm not sure about Ubuntu, but from my experience with Redhat, what a version is outdated and end of life 12 months after it's released, come on, you guys SERIOUSLY think people will go for that?
If you aren't familiar with a modern GNU/Linux desktop distro, as opposed to the Redhat enterprise testing grounds, and can't be bothered to do even elementary research into the matter then your opinion carries no weight. Ubuntu's Long Term Support releases are supported for 3 years after the release for desktop installations. It's not quite XP, but then again, you don't have to get a new machine or pay several hundred dollars for a box mostly filled with air when you are ready to upgrade.
Perhaps you missed his point. The graphical tools are quite straightforward, it's what the average user is expected to use on their own accords. On the other hand when the average user needs help and is chatting with an power user, it can be faster and less frustrating for them to copy-and-paste then to try to describe where exactly they are and what they see. Preferably the power user should explain that it either is doable via graphical tools and this is just easier for them to describe or the problem is above the average users head to begin with, and it doesn't make a difference (the windows equivalent is digging into the registry, some problems can't be solved otherwise).
And all for the low, low price of messing with lawyers and an uncertain feature. Good you cleared up the myth that MPEG-LA was created to collect royalties, it's quite clear thet it only exists to make licensees feel good about the codecs they apparently never pay anything for. In fact camera manufacturers hide small print in the manuals about your lack of license for your own good...
H.264 licensees include the manufacturers of damn near every piece of video hardware sold on this planet.
Just don't expect that whatever license they have covers the user... Giving people the ability to use their videos commercially without paying off the MPEG-LA yet another time just might be a competitive advantage.
Now the question is how it may have used — and secured — all this private information.
Considering that they didn't plan to collect it, I think the answer is "exactly as they did", disclosure. Next time it will go into a bit-bucket because of all the hassle disclosure caused and if an employee had pulled a copy beforehand no-one would have any idea...
On the other hand the water in traditional hydroelectric plants doesn't need to be pumped, just preserved. If the wind-farm can inform the hydro plant of this fact, then there is no need to actually bother pumping.
Wouldn't communication between wind farms and on/off turbines largely eliminate this problem? E.g. save the water in the hydroelectric plant while the winds are high?
Slashdot Mirror
So... you listed 3 types of physical things. Passwords are not. If you want your access tokens returned, you make them smart cards or OTP generators. In that case you actually get them back and the person loses access.
Where the HR person and police officer authorized? Did the authorized person have power to extend authorization?
But 'k' isn't it.
Document? You mean the sheet music PDFs? I just tested a random one and it opened fine...
Please consider supporting Musopen.
So leaving your router wide open is nothing more then visiting a website?
I propose a non-XSS version of this "no frills" attack: obtaining the location of a user who set chrome to tell everyone by default. Run for the hills.
It could hardly have started before, considering that Ubuntu didn't exist before Canonical.
I've used Slackware, Mandrake, Debian and FreeBSD. Slackware and FreeBSD have convinced me that a proper packaging system is a good idea. Mandrake and FreeBSD have convinced me that proper packaging is a good idea (I wasn't experienced enough back when I started on Slackware to tell if the packaging was done properly). If it wasn't for Ubuntu I'd probably still be on Debian, cursing broken unstable (their release frequency picked up considerably after Ubuntu started setting the pace, I think Debian users have benefited quite a bit from Ubuntu's existence).
So while I haven't used every distro under the sun, I do have some ground to prefer Debian derivatives, Ubuntu in particular, to others.
Modules of 2.30. Module maintenance is over the last two years. The time frame for the commit table isn't explicitly listed. Looking at the modules in 2.30 might mean the full history of the modules involved just as well as 2.28 to 2.30. The later is susceptible to fluctuations, Ubuntu had an upcoming LTS release that would have gobbled up resources for example.
Fallout, it doesn't stay in their backyard.
Is this over the lifetime of Gnome or that of Canonical. If it's the former, then your argument doesn't hold water. Yay for statistics without methodology!
Not to mention that Red Hat has been riding on volunteer coattails for all of their existence by this logic. Hell, look at Fedora, it's volunteer packaging and testing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
If you want to pick on Canonical for something, pick on something that isn't an integral part of GNU/Linux distros.
Meanwhile in the non-alternate universe Monster still exists and you can't get any HDMI cable for under $20 in a brick and mortar store.
I'd say it's still better than the TV silently failing to pass audio from the (HDMI connected) DVR to the (HDMI connected) surround sound system. I assume it's an DRM issue, but it still took me a while to accept that it won't work. I feel sorry for anyone who is not aware of the DRM...
And by HD you mean 720p, 1080i, 1080p or anything better then 480p? Plenty of people are confused by the fuzzy HD label, many are stuck with 720p TVs for it. Not to mention when it's applied to every other device, HD speakers, sign me up!
Do the "high speed" cables work at high speed for "standard" devices? Because I'd bet that people will pick them up just because they are "faster". More critical people who aren't aware that it's actually different types of cables, not just mostly meaningless marketing, might go for the standard and not be able to take full advantage of their devices.
No, the confusion is not that the names are outlandish, it's (in part) because it's just (apparently) simple descriptions. Electronics are covered with meaningless slogans in the wane of "high speed", how will this manage to different itself from that and actually indicate compatibility?
Do you realize what the screenshot shows?
So that we can all be stuck with a non-maintained set of libraries when Qt 5 comes out?
I guess in a sense it does have different modes. The screenshot is of the "high-level overview mode" where you switch between applications/windows (my favorite part by far, think expose over all of the desktops), start applications, open documents, log out, etc. The typical "working on this-or-that mode" only has a bar on the top (and an optional, collapsible sidebar).
Actually webcams are finally starting to be USB Video Class devices, and just work like USB sticks have for years. You still have to make sure you get one, but the situation is improving.
If you aren't familiar with a modern GNU/Linux desktop distro, as opposed to the Redhat enterprise testing grounds, and can't be bothered to do even elementary research into the matter then your opinion carries no weight. Ubuntu's Long Term Support releases are supported for 3 years after the release for desktop installations. It's not quite XP, but then again, you don't have to get a new machine or pay several hundred dollars for a box mostly filled with air when you are ready to upgrade.
Perhaps you missed his point. The graphical tools are quite straightforward, it's what the average user is expected to use on their own accords. On the other hand when the average user needs help and is chatting with an power user, it can be faster and less frustrating for them to copy-and-paste then to try to describe where exactly they are and what they see. Preferably the power user should explain that it either is doable via graphical tools and this is just easier for them to describe or the problem is above the average users head to begin with, and it doesn't make a difference (the windows equivalent is digging into the registry, some problems can't be solved otherwise).
And all for the low, low price of messing with lawyers and an uncertain feature. Good you cleared up the myth that MPEG-LA was created to collect royalties, it's quite clear thet it only exists to make licensees feel good about the codecs they apparently never pay anything for. In fact camera manufacturers hide small print in the manuals about your lack of license for your own good...
Just don't expect that whatever license they have covers the user... Giving people the ability to use their videos commercially without paying off the MPEG-LA yet another time just might be a competitive advantage.
Considering that they didn't plan to collect it, I think the answer is "exactly as they did", disclosure. Next time it will go into a bit-bucket because of all the hassle disclosure caused and if an employee had pulled a copy beforehand no-one would have any idea...
On the other hand the water in traditional hydroelectric plants doesn't need to be pumped, just preserved. If the wind-farm can inform the hydro plant of this fact, then there is no need to actually bother pumping.
Wouldn't communication between wind farms and on/off turbines largely eliminate this problem? E.g. save the water in the hydroelectric plant while the winds are high?