A lawyer for the plaintiff would argue that "blank media" and "an empty area of an already-formatted and currently-in-use media" are substantially similar for the purposes of the doctrine of equivalents.
Good luck compiling "auditable source code" that depends on Cocoa for anything other than macOS, particularly if it depends on the parts of Cocoa that GNUstep doesn't replicate. Or vice versa: Good luck compiling a Win32 application and device driver on macOS or Linux. (Wine doesn't run drivers.)
No, I prefer that no software except the Bluetooth driver recognize a device as being Bluetooth. As far as any application can tell, a Bluetooth headset with microphone should be indistinguishable from any other stereo audio output and mono audio input.
That works because your PC's operating system is aware of "stereo audio output" and "mono audio input" as a device class. Are the major PC operating systems aware of, say, "CNC mill" or "3D printer" as a device class yet?
Hell Yes, I want only native applications to access my Bluetooth devices: Only the apps that I choose to install [...] Building cross-platform apps is another problem.
But "another problem" is exactly the problem to which I was referring. Good luck "choos[ing] to install" a.msi on your Mac or the contents of a.dmg on your not-Mac.
Without a device running Lyft, Uber, or a similar app, how is one supposed to book a ride to or from work at night, on Sundays, or on a major holiday? Public transit doesn't run then (source: fwcitilink.com).
I don't see how Bluetooth helps with fingerprinting users if the user has to first click "Allow for https://example.com/".
If you are addressing this from a position of objecting to fingerprinting in general: The easiest way to fingerprint users is to require a Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, or email account login to read past the abstract. As browsers add anti-fingerprinting measures, watch more sites become "free reg. req."
Would you prefer that only native apps be able to access Bluetooth devices? Then companies will just make the required native app exclusive to the operating system other than the one that your PC runs. For example, one company might be tempted to make a device's corresponding native app exclusive to macOS. Another might be tempted to make its own exclusive to Windows.
Sorry, the Skype and WhatsApp upgrades/forced upgrades have nothing to do with keys or credentials.
You alone are probably unwilling to shoulder the entire cost of maintaining an additional "server only for initiating the connection" just for users of operating systems that are no longer supported.
And yes, worst case I would prefer to keep it "unsecure".
Would you say the same about your device's operating system? If it has a vulnerability that its publisher is no longer willing to fix, an attacker can compromise your device and add it to the attacker's botnet.
And as my friends on WhatsApp or Skype are not in the child porn business
If an attacker can copy your friend's session, the attacker can send images of sexual abuse as if your friend had sent them.
all the pictures we exchange are ok and no one cares if they 'leak'.
Images of sexual abuse are not the only thing that people are unwilling to leak. Another is trade secrets.
Skype needs the server only for initiating the connection. As soon as a call is running it is a p2p connection.
Is a voice or video call P2P even if both sides are behind NAT? Is chat P2P?
The credentials used on WhatsApp and Skype are obviously unique to those services
Microsoft account (formerly Passport.net) credentials can be used on not only Skype but also on numerous other services.
Behind every sleazy lawyer there's a sleazy client. The real enemy is the laws that the lawyers use. But then perhaps trial lawyers are the enemy to the extent that the American Association for Justice contributes to legislators' election campaigns on the tacit agreement that said legislators will keep statutes and regulations complicated.
I imagine that without economies of scale, ISPs offering "a modern version of AOL" are likely to either cease offering "the real deal" or charge hundreds of dollars per month for "the real deal", making it cost-prohibitive to become a freelance techie.
At least for the next 47 months, we don't have to worry about the United States exporting bad laws quite as quickly if President Trump continues his stated preference to deal with other countries one at a time in bilateral treaties, not en masse like the TPP was supposed to do.
The deliberate switching off is done at the server for two reasons: to protect users from intruders (such as no longer supporting weak ciphers and hashes) and to keep the cost of continuing to serve users down. Would you prefer that your credentials be surreptitiously copied and reused because you refused to upgrade your OS to one that supports a hash currently believed to be strong?
The solution I intended to imply was to insist on buying switches that come with at least enough API information to make your own client instead of using the included applet.
Is there a good way to feature-detect for ECMAScript 6 syntax support in a web browser without using eval, new Function, or anything treated as similarly unsafe by Content Security Policy?
Your problem isn't that the network switch is administered through a Java applet. Ideally, you could edit the source code to use JNLP (Java Web Start) instead of an applet. Your problem is that the switch's administration firmware is proprietary software.
Recent Java versions prompted users to enable an applet before it was run, flash still doesn't.
Yes it does, at least for the past several years. There used to be a Firefox extension called Flashblock that prompted users to activate each SWF object on a site that the user hasn't added to the extension's whitelist. Nowadays, Firefox itself includes click-to-play for Flash Player. But no matter how activated, SWF click to play behavior used to be an effective plausibly deniable ad blocker until the iPad took off and ad networks got the "mobile first" hint.
You can use any programming language you want, so long as you have access to a compiler to compile it into JavaScript. Treat JavaScript as an object code format, not the source code. That's what asm.js was supposed to be about: a subset of JavaScript that the JIT engine can convert trivially for which things like Emscripten can generate code.
Slashdot Mirror
A lawyer for the plaintiff would argue that "blank media" and "an empty area of an already-formatted and currently-in-use media" are substantially similar for the purposes of the doctrine of equivalents.
Good luck compiling "auditable source code" that depends on Cocoa for anything other than macOS, particularly if it depends on the parts of Cocoa that GNUstep doesn't replicate. Or vice versa: Good luck compiling a Win32 application and device driver on macOS or Linux. (Wine doesn't run drivers.)
No, I prefer that no software except the Bluetooth driver recognize a device as being Bluetooth. As far as any application can tell, a Bluetooth headset with microphone should be indistinguishable from any other stereo audio output and mono audio input.
That works because your PC's operating system is aware of "stereo audio output" and "mono audio input" as a device class. Are the major PC operating systems aware of, say, "CNC mill" or "3D printer" as a device class yet?
Hell Yes, I want only native applications to access my Bluetooth devices: Only the apps that I choose to install [...] Building cross-platform apps is another problem.
But "another problem" is exactly the problem to which I was referring. Good luck "choos[ing] to install" a .msi on your Mac or the contents of a .dmg on your not-Mac.
Without a device running Lyft, Uber, or a similar app, how is one supposed to book a ride to or from work at night, on Sundays, or on a major holiday? Public transit doesn't run then (source: fwcitilink.com).
The cache folder of your video rental app is "blank media".
I don't see how Bluetooth helps with fingerprinting users if the user has to first click "Allow for https://example.com/".
If you are addressing this from a position of objecting to fingerprinting in general: The easiest way to fingerprint users is to require a Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, or email account login to read past the abstract. As browsers add anti-fingerprinting measures, watch more sites become "free reg. req."
require an admin password to authorize each and every device.
Getting the user in the habit of entering the admin password that often is a good way to phish admin passwords.
Would you prefer that only native apps be able to access Bluetooth devices? Then companies will just make the required native app exclusive to the operating system other than the one that your PC runs. For example, one company might be tempted to make a device's corresponding native app exclusive to macOS. Another might be tempted to make its own exclusive to Windows.
Sorry, the Skype and WhatsApp upgrades/forced upgrades have nothing to do with keys or credentials.
You alone are probably unwilling to shoulder the entire cost of maintaining an additional "server only for initiating the connection" just for users of operating systems that are no longer supported.
And yes, worst case I would prefer to keep it "unsecure".
Would you say the same about your device's operating system? If it has a vulnerability that its publisher is no longer willing to fix, an attacker can compromise your device and add it to the attacker's botnet.
And as my friends on WhatsApp or Skype are not in the child porn business
If an attacker can copy your friend's session, the attacker can send images of sexual abuse as if your friend had sent them.
all the pictures we exchange are ok and no one cares if they 'leak'.
Images of sexual abuse are not the only thing that people are unwilling to leak. Another is trade secrets.
Skype needs the server only for initiating the connection. As soon as a call is running it is a p2p connection.
Is a voice or video call P2P even if both sides are behind NAT? Is chat P2P?
The credentials used on WhatsApp and Skype are obviously unique to those services
Microsoft account (formerly Passport.net) credentials can be used on not only Skype but also on numerous other services.
Behind every sleazy lawyer there's a sleazy client. The real enemy is the laws that the lawyers use. But then perhaps trial lawyers are the enemy to the extent that the American Association for Justice contributes to legislators' election campaigns on the tacit agreement that said legislators will keep statutes and regulations complicated.
It's also harder to start a car company today than 100 years ago...
How much of that is directly caused by regulations introduced since then, such as CAFE?
I imagine that without economies of scale, ISPs offering "a modern version of AOL" are likely to either cease offering "the real deal" or charge hundreds of dollars per month for "the real deal", making it cost-prohibitive to become a freelance techie.
At least for the next 47 months, we don't have to worry about the United States exporting bad laws quite as quickly if President Trump continues his stated preference to deal with other countries one at a time in bilateral treaties, not en masse like the TPP was supposed to do.
Being present lets you participate in any question and answer segments after a talk, rather than just watching.
The deliberate switching off is done at the server for two reasons: to protect users from intruders (such as no longer supporting weak ciphers and hashes) and to keep the cost of continuing to serve users down. Would you prefer that your credentials be surreptitiously copied and reused because you refused to upgrade your OS to one that supports a hash currently believed to be strong?
Software is much easier to change than hardware, is not it?
Which is why people who care about their freedom ought to consider hardware carefully before buying it.
The solution I intended to imply was to insist on buying switches that come with at least enough API information to make your own client instead of using the included applet.
It has its uses but it's a security hazard.
Is there a good way to feature-detect for ECMAScript 6 syntax support in a web browser without using eval, new Function, or anything treated as similarly unsafe by Content Security Policy?
We have ALTERable GOTOs in modern languages. They're called function pointers.
However some language like JavaScript really don't give you much of an option. Such as a lack of a sleep command
Of course there's a sleep command.
Dell/HP doesn't update their ilo/idrac firmware anymore
Which is a problem only because said management firmware is proprietary software.
my HP machines cannot boot on "big" usb sticks that are required for any modern OS (win2012r2).
Can you use a "small" USB stick to install a free operating system, such as Debian netinst, instead of Windows Server 2012 R2?
Your problem isn't that the network switch is administered through a Java applet. Ideally, you could edit the source code to use JNLP (Java Web Start) instead of an applet. Your problem is that the switch's administration firmware is proprietary software.
Recent Java versions prompted users to enable an applet before it was run, flash still doesn't.
Yes it does, at least for the past several years. There used to be a Firefox extension called Flashblock that prompted users to activate each SWF object on a site that the user hasn't added to the extension's whitelist. Nowadays, Firefox itself includes click-to-play for Flash Player. But no matter how activated, SWF click to play behavior used to be an effective plausibly deniable ad blocker until the iPad took off and ad networks got the "mobile first" hint.
You can use any programming language you want, so long as you have access to a compiler to compile it into JavaScript. Treat JavaScript as an object code format, not the source code. That's what asm.js was supposed to be about: a subset of JavaScript that the JIT engine can convert trivially for which things like Emscripten can generate code.