Say I want to use a start button.. I hit the windows key, I type the first three characters of the thing I want, maybe I need to hit up arrow once and I hit enter. Five key presses and I can run anything. What is the counterpart on OSX?
Cmd+Space, type first three characters of the thing you want, hit enter.
Did it really? Or is it a case of ATT knowing they are about to lose business and they are in a panic to stop it. Another case of "we can't compete let's take them to court". Sad really.
From what I understand Louisville should win this hands down. It's not like Google is going to go fuck up ATT poles. Besides they are only allowed where they are because of Louisville. If it wasn't for their approval ATT wouldn't have been allowed to lay the poles.
Read the article. AT&T isn't trying to block Google from using their poles.
l. Fibre is all well and good, but the last mile into everyones home is still going to have to be a cable connection for higher-than-dsl speed, and cable companies aren't just going to give it to you. The other alternative, to spread out into existing markets, means asking homeowners and landlords to undertake expensive retrofits for cat6 and fibre drops.
That may be true on average, but I've got fiber to my house and I get 940 Mbps+ up and down from AT&T GigaPower for the last year.
Based on the Symantec quote, it seems more like the NSA wants to audit the anti-virus before it gets used on government systems. So, more likely, Avast isn't asked for their source because they're not getting greenlit to be installed.
Bingo. There are certain gov organizations that you can't sell into unless you let them audit your source. It's not just the US either. Also required for certain Russian certifications (for example).
Assuming that the routers require signed firmware images (or will in the near future), the law should require that everything needed to load new images into the router by the user should be made available (including any signing keys).
That entirely misses the point of why the FCC is wanting to lock down the firmware...
I agree when they close down people who are making a profit from piracy. I believe that is all I need to say.
In other words, you don't really believe that the law is the law and you should have it changed rather than breaking it when you don't think it should apply to you.
It makes no difference the quality of the taxi's that are in existence. If the laws aren't making taxi's you like, then, again.. Why is this so hard to understand... HAVE THE LAW CHANGED. It doesn't give anyone carte blanche to break the law.
Given the prevailing stances on/., I have to ask if you say the same thing when it comes to copyright laws? Did you pay for all of the music and movies on your computer/phone? Or were you with the rest of the/. crowd saying "screw the man!11!! they shouldn't charge so much!"
Quite frankly the majority of Slashdot seems to be completely down with disregarding all of contract law, which is sort of hilarious given the fervor with which they go after GPL violators with.
Don't forget that copyright law should be ignored (ie., music, movies, etc.) unless it is to enforce GPL
Like copyright laws? How many of you whining about Uber download music without paying for it? Do you argue so strongly that copyrights should be respected and music has to be paid for until the law is changed?
You're confusing business with charity. Unscrupulous businesses thank you.
No, I'm clear on the difference. It's people that think participating in Kickstarter campaigns is an investment that are confused.
When you give money, did you get stock or chotchkies? If you got stock, you are investing. Otherwise, you are giving away your money.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, just as long as you know which you are doing. If it makes you happy to contribute towards making some product/thing/project happen, that's great. It's just not in any way, shape or form an investment where you expect a financial return if the product/thing/project succeeds.
You shouldn't trust the cloud providers. Even if the CSP and its employees are trustworthy, if they get a court order or double-secret-probation security letter, they have to turn the data over.
Whether that matters or not depends on what you are doing with the cloud though. If you are using cloud storage as a "big scalable drive in the sky", then you just need to encrypt the data on-premise where YOU control the encryption keys. Server(cloud)-side encryption helps with hackers, but not against three letter agencies.
Just using encryption to transport the data isn't enough. The data itself needs to be encrypted before it goes to the cloud. As long as you do that, you can take advantage of the cloud providers cost structure and save yourself some significant $$$ without risking your data.
The math isn't really the point. The point is that people seem to think all those government benefits, programs, etc. are free.
Today in the US, you never really "see" the taxes directly. Most people just look at their take-home pay, not their gross pay. If you got rid of all those out-of-sight, out-of-mind deductions from people's paychecks and made them write a check to the IRS each month, they would be WAY more aware of the cost of government.
Presumably that would make them significantly less likely to vote for politicians promising them more "free" stuff, because that monthly check to the IRS keeps the cost in their face.
IBM did not one but several REALLY fucking stupid things, 1.- When Intel refused to license the 386 for second sourcing IBM refused to buy it, instead sticking with the 286 (which they made) damned near until the Pentium was released.
Interesting version of history you have there... The 386 went into full production in mid-1986. IBM released their first 386-based computer in 1987 (PS/2 Model 80). The Pentium came out in 1993.
All the major testing houses check for false positives alongside detections, but perhaps they decided more false positives would still look better on benchmarks than a lower detection rate.
It's not that they don't claim to test for false positives... It's that their FP testing tends to be... rudimentary.
To be fair, I haven't worked with these specific test houses. I have, however, worked closely with some very well-known and trusted test labs. Perception and reality don't line up very well
I am not shocked, but I am confused. Why would they give bad software to their customers, but give good software to the testers? The marginal cost of software is zero. So, if they have good software, why don't they give it to their customers? Can someone please explain how any of this makes sense?
It's really easy to "detect" everything so you get a high detection rate. It's really hard to do so without a ton of false positives.
Very few of the tests out there check for false positives, so it is easy to game the results. You could never ship the product to customers that way because you'd drown in support calls from customers complaining about programs not work, broken websites, etc.
Bullshit. Just use a firewall the proper way and stop using crap.
If your machines are that vulnerable you are already screwed. Hiding behind NAT and thinking you are safe is a joke.
Wait, you think firewalls provide security?
Even if your network is one of the rare ones that doesn't just allow any internally initiated traffic out, you'll at least have ports open for web access, email, ftp, dns, etc. Guess where the vast majority of the attacks come from? Web, email, etc. The exact ports you already have open on your firewall.
Attackers aren't stupid. They go where the opportunities are.
Traditional firewalls (stateful, L3/L4) are mostly about access control. They don't protect your vulnerable machines other than reducing the ports they can be attacked on.
Right, equal protection. For example, 2 people who make wildly different sums of money every day both get pulled over for speeding by the same amount, and both of them have to pay what it takes them say 3 days to earn. That way the richer guy doesn't laugh it off while the poorer guy gets evicted. Equal protection.
I've got no problem with that as long as we also apply it to taxes. Drop all deductions and charge everyone the same percentage of their income for taxes. Equal taxation.
JTAG debuggers are a major problem when you really need to protect your IP. It's enough of a hole that I got NetLogic to add an e-fuse to their XLP network processors (+ later generations) that could disable EJTAG.
Blow the e-fuse during ICT on production hardware and you can cut down on RE capabilities a fair bit.
Doesn't really help for general purpose computers, but a very nice for hardening embedded systems.
One of the more memorable quotes I heard while developing embedded systems: if you can fix it in software, it isn't a hardware bug
Annoying as hell to the software team when it is clearly a bug in the hardware, but very true at a practical level for the engineering team trying to get product out the door.
Slashdot Mirror
Say I want to use a start button.. I hit the windows key, I type the first three characters of the thing I want, maybe I need to hit up arrow once and I hit enter. Five key presses and I can run anything. What is the counterpart on OSX?
Cmd+Space, type first three characters of the thing you want, hit enter.
Did it really? Or is it a case of ATT knowing they are about to lose business and they are in a panic to stop it. Another case of "we can't compete let's take them to court". Sad really. From what I understand Louisville should win this hands down. It's not like Google is going to go fuck up ATT poles. Besides they are only allowed where they are because of Louisville. If it wasn't for their approval ATT wouldn't have been allowed to lay the poles.
Read the article. AT&T isn't trying to block Google from using their poles.
You've got to wonder if the submitter even read the article it links to. That summary is remarkably misleading.
Regardless of what you think about AT&T generally, it's pretty clear they are in the right on this one. The city overstepped its authority.
l. Fibre is all well and good, but the last mile into everyones home is still going to have to be a cable connection for higher-than-dsl speed, and cable companies aren't just going to give it to you. The other alternative, to spread out into existing markets, means asking homeowners and landlords to undertake expensive retrofits for cat6 and fibre drops.
That may be true on average, but I've got fiber to my house and I get 940 Mbps+ up and down from AT&T GigaPower for the last year.
The Slate article is interesting, but it is also almost a year old. Do the editors check anything before accepting submissions?
Based on the Symantec quote, it seems more like the NSA wants to audit the anti-virus before it gets used on government systems. So, more likely, Avast isn't asked for their source because they're not getting greenlit to be installed.
Bingo. There are certain gov organizations that you can't sell into unless you let them audit your source. It's not just the US either. Also required for certain Russian certifications (for example).
And then we could have competition on the search-engine front again, because Google search frankly sucks.
Not sure what planet you are living on, but oddly enough, you are free to use all those other search engines that are better than Google.
Assuming that the routers require signed firmware images (or will in the near future), the law should require that everything needed to load new images into the router by the user should be made available (including any signing keys).
That entirely misses the point of why the FCC is wanting to lock down the firmware...
I agree when they close down people who are making a profit from piracy. I believe that is all I need to say.
In other words, you don't really believe that the law is the law and you should have it changed rather than breaking it when you don't think it should apply to you.
It makes no difference the quality of the taxi's that are in existence. If the laws aren't making taxi's you like, then, again.. Why is this so hard to understand... HAVE THE LAW CHANGED. It doesn't give anyone carte blanche to break the law.
Given the prevailing stances on /., I have to ask if you say the same thing when it comes to copyright laws? Did you pay for all of the music and movies on your computer/phone? Or were you with the rest of the /. crowd saying "screw the man!11!! they shouldn't charge so much!"
Quite frankly the majority of Slashdot seems to be completely down with disregarding all of contract law, which is sort of hilarious given the fervor with which they go after GPL violators with.
Don't forget that copyright law should be ignored (ie., music, movies, etc.) unless it is to enforce GPL
Like copyright laws? How many of you whining about Uber download music without paying for it? Do you argue so strongly that copyrights should be respected and music has to be paid for until the law is changed?
So where do you stand on copyrights on music? Do you download music regardless of what the law says? After all, the law is the law...
You're confusing business with charity. Unscrupulous businesses thank you.
No, I'm clear on the difference. It's people that think participating in Kickstarter campaigns is an investment that are confused.
When you give money, did you get stock or chotchkies? If you got stock, you are investing. Otherwise, you are giving away your money.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, just as long as you know which you are doing. If it makes you happy to contribute towards making some product/thing/project happen, that's great. It's just not in any way, shape or form an investment where you expect a financial return if the product/thing/project succeeds.
1. Create platform for those wishing to raise capital;
2. Small-time supporters donate;
3. Take cut;
4. Pass on donations;
5. Product/service created;
6. ???
7. No profit for donors.
You shouldn't trust the cloud providers. Even if the CSP and its employees are trustworthy, if they get a court order or double-secret-probation security letter, they have to turn the data over.
Whether that matters or not depends on what you are doing with the cloud though. If you are using cloud storage as a "big scalable drive in the sky", then you just need to encrypt the data on-premise where YOU control the encryption keys. Server(cloud)-side encryption helps with hackers, but not against three letter agencies.
Just using encryption to transport the data isn't enough. The data itself needs to be encrypted before it goes to the cloud. As long as you do that, you can take advantage of the cloud providers cost structure and save yourself some significant $$$ without risking your data.
Your math is ridiculous.
The math isn't really the point. The point is that people seem to think all those government benefits, programs, etc. are free.
Today in the US, you never really "see" the taxes directly. Most people just look at their take-home pay, not their gross pay. If you got rid of all those out-of-sight, out-of-mind deductions from people's paychecks and made them write a check to the IRS each month, they would be WAY more aware of the cost of government.
Presumably that would make them significantly less likely to vote for politicians promising them more "free" stuff, because that monthly check to the IRS keeps the cost in their face.
IBM did not one but several REALLY fucking stupid things, 1.- When Intel refused to license the 386 for second sourcing IBM refused to buy it, instead sticking with the 286 (which they made) damned near until the Pentium was released.
Interesting version of history you have there... The 386 went into full production in mid-1986. IBM released their first 386-based computer in 1987 (PS/2 Model 80). The Pentium came out in 1993.
All the major testing houses check for false positives alongside detections, but perhaps they decided more false positives would still look better on benchmarks than a lower detection rate.
It's not that they don't claim to test for false positives... It's that their FP testing tends to be... rudimentary.
To be fair, I haven't worked with these specific test houses. I have, however, worked closely with some very well-known and trusted test labs. Perception and reality don't line up very well
I am not shocked, but I am confused. Why would they give bad software to their customers, but give good software to the testers? The marginal cost of software is zero. So, if they have good software, why don't they give it to their customers? Can someone please explain how any of this makes sense?
It's really easy to "detect" everything so you get a high detection rate. It's really hard to do so without a ton of false positives.
Very few of the tests out there check for false positives, so it is easy to game the results. You could never ship the product to customers that way because you'd drown in support calls from customers complaining about programs not work, broken websites, etc.
Bullshit. Just use a firewall the proper way and stop using crap.
If your machines are that vulnerable you are already screwed. Hiding behind NAT and thinking you are safe is a joke.
Wait, you think firewalls provide security?
Even if your network is one of the rare ones that doesn't just allow any internally initiated traffic out, you'll at least have ports open for web access, email, ftp, dns, etc. Guess where the vast majority of the attacks come from? Web, email, etc. The exact ports you already have open on your firewall.
Attackers aren't stupid. They go where the opportunities are.
Traditional firewalls (stateful, L3/L4) are mostly about access control. They don't protect your vulnerable machines other than reducing the ports they can be attacked on.
Right, equal protection. For example, 2 people who make wildly different sums of money every day both get pulled over for speeding by the same amount, and both of them have to pay what it takes them say 3 days to earn. That way the richer guy doesn't laugh it off while the poorer guy gets evicted. Equal protection.
I've got no problem with that as long as we also apply it to taxes. Drop all deductions and charge everyone the same percentage of their income for taxes. Equal taxation.
Only one comment I can think of: outrageous prices (still, and again) combined with outrageous terms.
Regards,
a European broadband user.
And how much are you paying for your gigabit internet service?
JTAG debuggers are a major problem when you really need to protect your IP. It's enough of a hole that I got NetLogic to add an e-fuse to their XLP network processors (+ later generations) that could disable EJTAG.
Blow the e-fuse during ICT on production hardware and you can cut down on RE capabilities a fair bit.
Doesn't really help for general purpose computers, but a very nice for hardening embedded systems.
One of the more memorable quotes I heard while developing embedded systems: if you can fix it in software, it isn't a hardware bug
Annoying as hell to the software team when it is clearly a bug in the hardware, but very true at a practical level for the engineering team trying to get product out the door.