I have, on a couple occasions, used my smartphone to price-compare when in a retail store. Both times were at local, non-chain businesses. I like to visit a small shop when possible, because usually the owner or manager is present.
On both occasions, I very politely explained "Hi, I like this item and am hoping to buy it here. I was able to use my smartphone to compare prices. Some retailers will price-match Amazon (etc), who has this for $X. I can show you if you like. Would you be willing to match that price please?"
Now, here's the thing. I get that small businesses don't get the same wholesale pricing as Amazon. I'm not really demanding an Amazon price match. If they weren't willing to budge at all (especially if it's more than a 10% difference), it's possible I would walk. But, even if they met me halfway, I would still be happy to do business with them.
I think the idea of always paying the "asking price" is a very American cultural phenomenon. In Turkey, for example, it is literally expected that a customer will haggle for at least a 10% discount. It never hurts to ask, politely!
Sometimes when the government subpoenas an ISP for data on a specific customer, they request that this be done in a way that won't let the customer know. You can imagine the nature of criminal investigations that would call for this. The Google policy discussed here may very be for dealing with those types of cases. It's not logically correct to assume that this means Google is secretly sharing all e-mail data with a government.
Or, those 55 and older are willing to take the time to report an issue. Perhaps younger people are used to complex systems "not working" reliably, whereas older people are less tolerant of flakiness.
Ad networks should not enable their clients to include Javascript, Flash, Java, or other active content in the first place. If they have a compelling business case for doing so, all code should be "whitelist" filtered before being distributed. The ad network's reputation is on the line every time they serve an impression.
That's ok, from its perspective at 330 light years away, it's only 70 years since Kepler... if we just give it a few more centuries I am sure it will catch up with the new laws of orbital dynamics.
It sounds like anyone who enters the contest between now and the billionth purchase could win, not just whoever buys #1,000,000,000. Headline should be changed to reflect that.
Why does it have to be *functional* English? Most of the world is procedural English with some OO English here and there... I shouldn't have to learn a new programming paradigm just to communicate!
Would this attack style apply to any Firefox platform - Linux, Mac, Windows? As I understand it, FF plugins are mostly written in Javascript. Even on more secure platforms like Mac and Linux, each user has access to his own FF plugins directory, so if any malicious code were to be executed as him, it could presumably write this "plugin" into that user's FF settings directory.
WiFi access points, whether at 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz, use the ISM (Industrial Scientific and Medical) frequency bands, which are controlled by the FCC and designated for unrestricted use subject to power output limits (or similar; am not an RF expert). Therefore, in my opinion, any assumption that communications in that band are "secure" or legally enforcable are probably without any merit. Certainly, I think any state's attempted control over use of wireless spectrum would be overridden by FCC jurisdiction.
If the drivers were open source instead of provided from the vendor as "black boxes" with just a wrapper interface, we could *fix* this instead of waiting for new ones to evolve...
We're getting our news from random forum postings now?? I can't find "packet shaping" on TW's press releases site, although the forum post seems to be formatted as such. Anybody have a more reliable source?
You're right, that's how it works. What I meant by being in a different security domain was that currently, Google Desktop effectively "reaches out" from the Web pseudo-sandbox, over the "partition", into the desktop environment, all within the currently-loaded Google results page. Even though all the data and search results are still on my machine, they become opened up to the more-hostile Web environment when they shouldn't.
It sounds like this takes advantage of the "Google Integration" feature, where the Google Desktop software adds a link to your Google search results page. I found his explanation rather unclear, but it sounds like you can avoid this by going into Google Desktop's preferences, then the Display tab, then un-checking the last checkbox, "Show Desktop Search results on Google Web Search result pages".
I've always thought that was a scary idea anyway, since my desktop content should be in a clearly-partitioned security domain from Web content.
For a real answer, buy Theo Schlossnagle's book, "Scalable Internet Architectures". Theo presented a lengthy and highly-informative session at OSCON last year, and I subsequently bought and read his book. Worth every penny if you're professionally involved in providing reliable Internet services of any kind.
Slashdot Mirror
Verizon has an app store?
I have, on a couple occasions, used my smartphone to price-compare when in a retail store. Both times were at local, non-chain businesses. I like to visit a small shop when possible, because usually the owner or manager is present.
On both occasions, I very politely explained "Hi, I like this item and am hoping to buy it here. I was able to use my smartphone to compare prices. Some retailers will price-match Amazon (etc), who has this for $X. I can show you if you like. Would you be willing to match that price please?"
Now, here's the thing. I get that small businesses don't get the same wholesale pricing as Amazon. I'm not really demanding an Amazon price match. If they weren't willing to budge at all (especially if it's more than a 10% difference), it's possible I would walk. But, even if they met me halfway, I would still be happy to do business with them.
I think the idea of always paying the "asking price" is a very American cultural phenomenon. In Turkey, for example, it is literally expected that a customer will haggle for at least a 10% discount. It never hurts to ask, politely!
Sometimes when the government subpoenas an ISP for data on a specific customer, they request that this be done in a way that won't let the customer know. You can imagine the nature of criminal investigations that would call for this. The Google policy discussed here may very be for dealing with those types of cases. It's not logically correct to assume that this means Google is secretly sharing all e-mail data with a government.
Or, those 55 and older are willing to take the time to report an issue. Perhaps younger people are used to complex systems "not working" reliably, whereas older people are less tolerant of flakiness.
Ad networks should not enable their clients to include Javascript, Flash, Java, or other active content in the first place. If they have a compelling business case for doing so, all code should be "whitelist" filtered before being distributed. The ad network's reputation is on the line every time they serve an impression.
That's ok, from its perspective at 330 light years away, it's only 70 years since Kepler... if we just give it a few more centuries I am sure it will catch up with the new laws of orbital dynamics.
It sounds like anyone who enters the contest between now and the billionth purchase could win, not just whoever buys #1,000,000,000. Headline should be changed to reflect that.
Why does it have to be *functional* English? Most of the world is procedural English with some OO English here and there... I shouldn't have to learn a new programming paradigm just to communicate!
Would this attack style apply to any Firefox platform - Linux, Mac, Windows? As I understand it, FF plugins are mostly written in Javascript. Even on more secure platforms like Mac and Linux, each user has access to his own FF plugins directory, so if any malicious code were to be executed as him, it could presumably write this "plugin" into that user's FF settings directory.
Speak up!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/02/steve.fossett.search/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
And now we have a new disclaimer: IANAFP
Godaddy has a very simple SSL cert option that only validates that the certificate issued matches the domain registration info, which is super cheap.
Uncanny... I was just telling someone that Qt4 applications not using the Gtk theme engine was the #1 reason Linux has not been more widely adopted!
WiFi access points, whether at 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz, use the ISM (Industrial Scientific and Medical) frequency bands, which are controlled by the FCC and designated for unrestricted use subject to power output limits (or similar; am not an RF expert). Therefore, in my opinion, any assumption that communications in that band are "secure" or legally enforcable are probably without any merit. Certainly, I think any state's attempted control over use of wireless spectrum would be overridden by FCC jurisdiction.
If the drivers were open source instead of provided from the vendor as "black boxes" with just a wrapper interface, we could *fix* this instead of waiting for new ones to evolve...
It sounds like a simple captcha image on the router's login page would thwart this.
Declaring something "impossible" is often a very effective way to see it achieved by those who say "HA well I'll prove you wrong!"
We're getting our news from random forum postings now?? I can't find "packet shaping" on TW's press releases site, although the forum post seems to be formatted as such. Anybody have a more reliable source?
You're right, that's how it works. What I meant by being in a different security domain was that currently, Google Desktop effectively "reaches out" from the Web pseudo-sandbox, over the "partition", into the desktop environment, all within the currently-loaded Google results page. Even though all the data and search results are still on my machine, they become opened up to the more-hostile Web environment when they shouldn't.
It sounds like this takes advantage of the "Google Integration" feature, where the Google Desktop software adds a link to your Google search results page. I found his explanation rather unclear, but it sounds like you can avoid this by going into Google Desktop's preferences, then the Display tab, then un-checking the last checkbox, "Show Desktop Search results on Google Web Search result pages".
I've always thought that was a scary idea anyway, since my desktop content should be in a clearly-partitioned security domain from Web content.
Too bad I can't find an iStuff iCast on Amazon.com or ebay -- looks like a UK-only product.
Nice try, but it's not me. :)
For a real answer, buy Theo Schlossnagle's book, "Scalable Internet Architectures". Theo presented a lengthy and highly-informative session at OSCON last year, and I subsequently bought and read his book. Worth every penny if you're professionally involved in providing reliable Internet services of any kind.
That was me... sorry... my bad. FSB's (Fiber Seeking Backhoe) are tough to control.