And this is why we have have the patent problem. Why is the distance to the pilot any factor? Let's see. We have an RC airplane. We have wireless cameras. OMG, if I put a wireless camera on a RC airplane, that makes it a completely different and novel thing! USPO here I come! Wait... wireless telemetry... that's 2 patents!
No. Your question has too many variables and attempts to assign an absolute to it. If you don't need a 10 and only need up to a 7, then ask yourself if you'd fire the 7 who is an egotistical narcissist. Having said that, you may find that the 10 can look at your 7 problem and say "but if you do it this way, your 7 problem is now a 4 problem".
Oh look, it's yet another case of "If you have physical access to the server, all bets are off.". If you can clone the volume, you effectively have physical access to the server. This isn't a new vulnerability. Just another case of "It's on the webz, it must a a completely novel thing!".
Because in order for that stuff to be considered for inclusion in whatever Standard they are talking about, they probably had to agree to license it, usually under FRAND terms (Free, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory).
They're only "seeking" this patent. Sure, it might be granted eventually but that's when the complaints should start.
I disagree. The complaints should start now. This is not a company attempting to protect vast R&D investment into some innovative thing. This is a company attempting to build more patents to use in a patent war. They are attempting to game the system. I get _why_ they're attempting to game the system, but it's still wrong.
Re:If by "looking good", you mean "looking like iO
on
Inside OS X Mavericks
·
· Score: 1
The thing about the scroll bars that has been irritating me lately is that if you have a table UI control and scroll to the bottom of the table, the scroll bars appear (because you're scrolling), but the bottom scroll bar obscures the last row of the table. You have to wait for the scroll bars to go away before you can interact with that last row. Permanent scroll bars (which I like for other reasons as well) would solve that problem.
Interesting phrase "Right now consumers have control over whether they receive interest-based ads through the Digital Advertising
Alliance’s self-regulatory program." Yep, and here's the consumers' response to how well your "self-regulatory" program works. It doesn't. Since the DAA isn't acting in a desirable manner, the consumers are doing this instead. If the advertisers were less obnoxious (and big brother-ish) then the consumers wouldn't resort to drastic measures. Also (as noted in the summary), Mozilla appears to be "default blocking" of third-party cookies. If the consumers found that the benefits of the more "relevant and diverse Internet experience" were worth it, they can still turn them on. Opt-in instead of Opt-Out. Oh, what, nobody would opt-in? Wonder why....
That's a bit revisionist. Early unix was horribly insecure at multi-user stuff. It took a long while before security became something important in design.
Easiest example to name is the storage of passwords in/etc/passwd. Since the file was readable by everyone, it was easy to grab the hashes and perform offline attacks. I'm not even sure that early password hashes were salted in unix, which meant that if you could crack one account you could easily see that your password would match accounts X, Y and Z.
Speaking of revisionist... those attack methods did not exist (more accurately, had not been conceived of) at the time. Which is why salting came in (trying to counter both the "same password on two machines" and making it harder to create a rainbow table), and then afterwards the shadow password file (so that normal mortals can't get a hold of even the encrypted password).
For the longest time MD5 and DES were both considered secure, was it an error to rely on them 20 years ago?
Seven Cities of Gold? In that game if you made it a habit of killing the indigenous leaders they eventually got the idea and immediately surrendered when you showed up.
Be careful what you advise... up in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.
Your former employer filled undocumented, potentially important history (which belongs to us all)
In which case, why didn't we "all" pay for the dig instead of shafting the finder with the bill? And, reimburse the finder for the appropriation of land and/or time? (The gov't already said go ahead and build there, now they want to change their mind. With authority should come responsibility.)
Sure, but now they get to add that they worked on Black Swan (and got paid for it) instead of just interned. Oh, wait. Now that they've been paid to work on Black Swan, they'll sue for not being credited for it.
Even in your hypothetical situation where there's no mechanism for regulation and control, if the problem got out of hand, someone or some organization would quickly create that mechanism.
In the meantime you make a fortune running the company that has to clean up the resultant carnage from all of the colliding flying cars?
Yes, there is. Part of the UI is to protect the users from inadvertent operations. That's part of why various destructive operations in programs have the "are you sure?" dialog box. The good ones also have a checkbox that says "Don't ask this again".
There's a difference between making it hard to do a task, vs preventing the task altogether. There may be legitimate reasons why one may need to do the said task. Also, provide a way for the user to consciously remove the speed bumps you're putting in. I don't mind software that wants to hold your hand by default, but I want a way to tell it to get the heck out of my way and let me do my task.
There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger
Sure. But I know very few people who are "angry" at the deer that they are planning on having for dinner. (I'm excluding military applications for this)
Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.
Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?
Odd.. every ISP that I've had gives out public IPs. Now, they're only willing to give you 2 usually, but they're proper public IPs. I'm not counting visiting hotels and such.
Not true... the CGN unit can do a bunch of interesting things to sort this out. Assigning or hashing port numbers to source IPs, to maintaining a massive set of logs of which subscriber used which IP and port at what time.
Not saying that this is a _good_ thing, but is theoretically possible.
Im sorry but the concept of since its old its very stable is non-sense
Bad premise. This appears to imply that the goal is to run old stuff. The concept of "Since it has been tested well, it's very stable" is where Debian is. New kernel means everything needs retesting. Are you volunteering the time and equipment to run that kind of testing? And it's not just the kernel that needs retesting, it's all of the rest of the packages. (I haven't checked to see if they want to ensure that the kernel is the same rev on all platforms as well...)
Debian could ship a system with kernel 3.8 and the newer stuff that most distros use and be just as stable
Maybe. But without the testing to back it up, that's too much of a risk. Now that Debian 7 has been released, I kinda expect the latest kernel to be making its way into experimental and then unstable soon.
You can run a mixed branch installation should you so choose. Use stable for most everything, and bring Iceweasel in from testing (or even unstable).
Slashdot Mirror
And this is why we have have the patent problem. Why is the distance to the pilot any factor? Let's see. We have an RC airplane. We have wireless cameras. OMG, if I put a wireless camera on a RC airplane, that makes it a completely different and novel thing! USPO here I come! Wait... wireless telemetry... that's 2 patents!
No. Your question has too many variables and attempts to assign an absolute to it. If you don't need a 10 and only need up to a 7, then ask yourself if you'd fire the 7 who is an egotistical narcissist. Having said that, you may find that the 10 can look at your 7 problem and say "but if you do it this way, your 7 problem is now a 4 problem".
Oh look, it's yet another case of "If you have physical access to the server, all bets are off.". If you can clone the volume, you effectively have physical access to the server. This isn't a new vulnerability. Just another case of "It's on the webz, it must a a completely novel thing!".
Ermm...oops. that's FAIR, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory.
Because in order for that stuff to be considered for inclusion in whatever Standard they are talking about, they probably had to agree to license it, usually under FRAND terms (Free, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory).
They're only "seeking" this patent. Sure, it might be granted eventually but that's when the complaints should start.
I disagree. The complaints should start now. This is not a company attempting to protect vast R&D investment into some innovative thing. This is a company attempting to build more patents to use in a patent war. They are attempting to game the system. I get _why_ they're attempting to game the system, but it's still wrong.
The thing about the scroll bars that has been irritating me lately is that if you have a table UI control and scroll to the bottom of the table, the scroll bars appear (because you're scrolling), but the bottom scroll bar obscures the last row of the table. You have to wait for the scroll bars to go away before you can interact with that last row. Permanent scroll bars (which I like for other reasons as well) would solve that problem.
Some allergies are apparently serious enough that putting your sandwich on the counter, and then later Bob touching that area causes a reaction.
Interesting phrase "Right now consumers have control over whether they receive interest-based ads through the Digital Advertising Alliance’s self-regulatory program." Yep, and here's the consumers' response to how well your "self-regulatory" program works. It doesn't. Since the DAA isn't acting in a desirable manner, the consumers are doing this instead. If the advertisers were less obnoxious (and big brother-ish) then the consumers wouldn't resort to drastic measures. Also (as noted in the summary), Mozilla appears to be "default blocking" of third-party cookies. If the consumers found that the benefits of the more "relevant and diverse Internet experience" were worth it, they can still turn them on. Opt-in instead of Opt-Out. Oh, what, nobody would opt-in? Wonder why....
Or Canada....
That's a bit revisionist. Early unix was horribly insecure at multi-user stuff. It took a long while before security became something important in design. Easiest example to name is the storage of passwords in /etc/passwd. Since the file was readable by everyone, it was easy to grab the hashes and perform offline attacks. I'm not even sure that early password hashes were salted in unix, which meant that if you could crack one account you could easily see that your password would match accounts X, Y and Z.
Speaking of revisionist... those attack methods did not exist (more accurately, had not been conceived of) at the time. Which is why salting came in (trying to counter both the "same password on two machines" and making it harder to create a rainbow table), and then afterwards the shadow password file (so that normal mortals can't get a hold of even the encrypted password). For the longest time MD5 and DES were both considered secure, was it an error to rely on them 20 years ago?
Seven Cities of Gold? In that game if you made it a habit of killing the indigenous leaders they eventually got the idea and immediately surrendered when you showed up.
weld it up to make it non-functional
Be careful what you advise... up in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.
Because when the federated identity system gets broken in the same manner, the attacker doesn't have access to everything you use.
Or the majority of an apartment building which already has twisted pair running to each suite.
"Once"?!
Your former employer filled undocumented, potentially important history (which belongs to us all)
In which case, why didn't we "all" pay for the dig instead of shafting the finder with the bill? And, reimburse the finder for the appropriation of land and/or time? (The gov't already said go ahead and build there, now they want to change their mind. With authority should come responsibility.)
the use of HTTPS, which enforces HTTPS
What does that even mean?
Sure, but now they get to add that they worked on Black Swan (and got paid for it) instead of just interned. Oh, wait. Now that they've been paid to work on Black Swan, they'll sue for not being credited for it.
Even in your hypothetical situation where there's no mechanism for regulation and control, if the problem got out of hand, someone or some organization would quickly create that mechanism.
In the meantime you make a fortune running the company that has to clean up the resultant carnage from all of the colliding flying cars?
Yes, there is. Part of the UI is to protect the users from inadvertent operations. That's part of why various destructive operations in programs have the "are you sure?" dialog box. The good ones also have a checkbox that says "Don't ask this again". There's a difference between making it hard to do a task, vs preventing the task altogether. There may be legitimate reasons why one may need to do the said task. Also, provide a way for the user to consciously remove the speed bumps you're putting in. I don't mind software that wants to hold your hand by default, but I want a way to tell it to get the heck out of my way and let me do my task.
There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger
Sure. But I know very few people who are "angry" at the deer that they are planning on having for dinner. (I'm excluding military applications for this)
Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.
Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?
Odd.. every ISP that I've had gives out public IPs. Now, they're only willing to give you 2 usually, but they're proper public IPs. I'm not counting visiting hotels and such.
Not true... the CGN unit can do a bunch of interesting things to sort this out. Assigning or hashing port numbers to source IPs, to maintaining a massive set of logs of which subscriber used which IP and port at what time. Not saying that this is a _good_ thing, but is theoretically possible.
Im sorry but the concept of since its old its very stable is non-sense
Bad premise. This appears to imply that the goal is to run old stuff. The concept of "Since it has been tested well, it's very stable" is where Debian is. New kernel means everything needs retesting. Are you volunteering the time and equipment to run that kind of testing? And it's not just the kernel that needs retesting, it's all of the rest of the packages. (I haven't checked to see if they want to ensure that the kernel is the same rev on all platforms as well...)
Debian could ship a system with kernel 3.8 and the newer stuff that most distros use and be just as stable
Maybe. But without the testing to back it up, that's too much of a risk. Now that Debian 7 has been released, I kinda expect the latest kernel to be making its way into experimental and then unstable soon. You can run a mixed branch installation should you so choose. Use stable for most everything, and bring Iceweasel in from testing (or even unstable).