Perhaps the better option is for these 8-year-olds not to exist in the first place because the parents had access to condoms, IUDs, hormone treatment, or other means of birth control.
You will find NOBODY protesting poverty in 1700 for the same reason you won't find people protesting old age today. What's the point in protesting something that there is no solution to?
For the past century, the copyright term is supposed to reflect the lifetime of those heirs who knew the artist personally. The article "The Copyright Term Red Herring" attributes the extension to updating the formula based on the fact that people are living longer and reproducing later.
Do you mean CSV? The rules that Python applies to read and write tab- and comma-separated values compatible with Microsoft Excel aren't that funky. If a value contains a double quote, the delimiter (tab or comma), or a newline, double all double quotes and wrap the value with quotes. That's it. The SQL standard also does escaping by doubling up single quotes.
I wrote a PHP CSV reader/writer that applied the same rule (because I was having trouble with fgetcsv() at the time), and it interoperated with both Excel and Python. But by the time I got a job that required manipulating CSV files, the programming world had moved on from Concurrent Versions System to Subversion, as Git's "porcelain" (the VCS built on top of its storage layer) hadn't matured yet.
Seriously, you need a web based javascript API to stream content? Who the hell designed your NAS.
When a web browser's video controls are inadequate, then yes, you need a player script to present controls that let the user send a video into the full screen or onto a second screen.
Apps? Since when does Chrome's implmementation of the API matter for apps?
I didn't mean "app" as in native application; I meant "app" as in web application. Chrome's implementation of an API designed for web applications obviously matters to developers of web applications.
A lot of people have Internet access at home, at work, and in select restaurants, but no Internet access away from there. In order to afford a mobile ISP, they'd have to cancel their home ISP and make do with an oppressive monthly cap.
AAC is not proprietary to Apple. Apple isn't even a member of the AAC patent pool. However, it is encumbered by royalty-bearing patents in Slashdot's home country and others, which means it cannot be implemented in software distributed under a license that meets the FSF, DFSG, or OSI criteria for a free software license.
If you treat secure context gated APIs as if they do not exist, then your NAS's HTTP interface won't be able to use the Presentation API, which allows streaming videos stored on the NAS to second screen devices such as a Chromecast. Nor will your NAS be able to include an app that allows offline editing with sync once you return home, as Service Workers are for secure contexts only. There are even hints that the Fullscreen API itself will be made for secure contexts only in order to plug a phishing vulnerability.
You know, the kinds of people who are capable of setting up a CA to self sign certs and add their root certificate of their dev machine to their browser anyway.
A manufacturer of a network appliance containing a web server, such as a router or NAS, would need to automate the provision of a domain name and certificate to each person who buys such an appliance. A developer who makes a web application available for download and installation on a user-owned single-board computer, such as a Raspberry Pi, would need to automate the provision of a domain name and certificate to each person who installs said web application.
Why is this relevant in a discussion about a public site?
It is intended as a reminder that not all sites are public, and not all parties involved in this policy change have adequately addressed the effect of this policy change on private sites.
Why is this relevant when discussing a browser that still happily shows unencrypted communication?
A browser doesn't "happily show[] unencrypted communication" if it involves a JavaScript API that is reserved for secure contexts.
For an internal network you typically control all the endpoints, so you can create and trust your own CA...
Say you invite a friend or relative into your house and then invite him or her onto your guest network to view a video on your NAS. Is it typical in that case to install your root certificate on his or her machine? Because if so, that would let you MITM his or her traffic later on.
For that matter, why the heck would you do HTTPS on internal LAN?
Because a growing number of JavaScript APIs specify that they are available on HTTPS origins and http://localhost/ only, and nowhere else. One such API that is both limited to secure contexts and relevant to streaming a video from a home NAS is the Presentation API.
Hell, if you want HTTPS on your LAN addresses, just generate your own certs and install your own root cert on client machines.
Not all client machines make it practical to install a private root certificate, particularly mobile devices or set-top devices. Nor is it advisable to install a private root certificate on devices belonging to visiting friends and relatives if they want to watch a video that's on your NAS.
What's so "rent-seeking" about, say, Let's Encrypt? It issues trusted domain-validated certificates without charge to just about anyone who owns a domain name.
Even if one cannot open a connection to the device from the Internet, the CA still has to be able to resolve the device's name through the Internet in order to issue a certificate. Otherwise, you're stuck using self-signed certificates, and some mobile and set-top devices reportedly don't let the user examine the fingerprint of a self-signed certificate that a device presents to ensure that it is the intended certificate.
Besides, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to access network-attached storage over the Internet. You might trust it more than Google Drive or Microsoft OneDrive, for instance, or the storage connected to your single-board server might be bigger than the 2 GB that Dropbox gives you.
Do the world a favor, get a certificate for your site, even if it's just the free one from let's encrypt.
I agree for a public site. But it's not quite free for a private web server behind the firewall of a home LAN. Like other CAs that web browsers trust by default, Let's Encrypt requires a fully qualified domain name, not an IP address in 192.168/16 or a hostname within a reserved TLD like.internal, and many dynamic DNS providers aren't on the Public Suffix List and/or don't support TXT records. Should it be expected for every householder to buy a domain name so that the web interface of his router, printer, and NAS can be issued a certificate for HTTPS?
Which other "ubiquitous and cheaper hardware options" for fully GNU/Linux-compatible laptops are any good, so that a city school system or a community college can compare their prices? Buying a Windows laptop just to wipe it and install GNU/Linux still involves paying the Windows tax. Nor does the maker of a Windows laptop offer guarantee that accelerated graphics, audio, WLAN, Bluetooth, backlight brightness, and suspend will work under GNU/Linux. See, for example, everything that's broken or missing on ASUS Transformer Book T100TA.
Most of the custom applications used where I work are web applications. But a Chromebook would still not work so well because everyone seems to have one exception. One is Excel, as one of our suppliers encourages us to use the macro-driven Excel workbook that it supplies to pre-validate product feeds before we upload them. Another is Photoshop, used to touch up product images before uploading them. I doubt that Wine in Crostini is the answer.
I work in higher ed (community/state college with only a few 4yr programs) and we were discussing G vs MS the other day.
How about: regular laptops with Linux.
Taxpayers might call buying laptops designed to run GNU/Linux a waste of money if the Linux driver NDA exception tax exceeds the Windows tax, as Shikaku mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the better option is for these 8-year-olds not to exist in the first place because the parents had access to condoms, IUDs, hormone treatment, or other means of birth control.
You will find NOBODY protesting poverty in 1700 for the same reason you won't find people protesting old age today. What's the point in protesting something that there is no solution to?
I find SENS Research Foundation attempting to find solutions.
And damnit, where are all of the quadraplegic trapeze artists.
You jest, but look up aerialist Jen Bricker.
For the past century, the copyright term is supposed to reflect the lifetime of those heirs who knew the artist personally. The article "The Copyright Term Red Herring" attributes the extension to updating the formula based on the fact that people are living longer and reproducing later.
Do you mean CSV? The rules that Python applies to read and write tab- and comma-separated values compatible with Microsoft Excel aren't that funky. If a value contains a double quote, the delimiter (tab or comma), or a newline, double all double quotes and wrap the value with quotes. That's it. The SQL standard also does escaping by doubling up single quotes.
I wrote a PHP CSV reader/writer that applied the same rule (because I was having trouble with fgetcsv() at the time), and it interoperated with both Excel and Python. But by the time I got a job that required manipulating CSV files, the programming world had moved on from Concurrent Versions System to Subversion, as Git's "porcelain" (the VCS built on top of its storage layer) hadn't matured yet.
Seriously, you need a web based javascript API to stream content? Who the hell designed your NAS.
When a web browser's video controls are inadequate, then yes, you need a player script to present controls that let the user send a video into the full screen or onto a second screen.
Apps? Since when does Chrome's implmementation of the API matter for apps?
I didn't mean "app" as in native application; I meant "app" as in web application. Chrome's implementation of an API designed for web applications obviously matters to developers of web applications.
A lot of people have Internet access at home, at work, and in select restaurants, but no Internet access away from there. In order to afford a mobile ISP, they'd have to cancel their home ISP and make do with an oppressive monthly cap.
AAC is not proprietary to Apple. Apple isn't even a member of the AAC patent pool. However, it is encumbered by royalty-bearing patents in Slashdot's home country and others, which means it cannot be implemented in software distributed under a license that meets the FSF, DFSG, or OSI criteria for a free software license.
Don't use that Javascript API then.
If you treat secure context gated APIs as if they do not exist, then your NAS's HTTP interface won't be able to use the Presentation API, which allows streaming videos stored on the NAS to second screen devices such as a Chromecast. Nor will your NAS be able to include an app that allows offline editing with sync once you return home, as Service Workers are for secure contexts only. There are even hints that the Fullscreen API itself will be made for secure contexts only in order to plug a phishing vulnerability.
You know, the kinds of people who are capable of setting up a CA to self sign certs and add their root certificate of their dev machine to their browser anyway.
A manufacturer of a network appliance containing a web server, such as a router or NAS, would need to automate the provision of a domain name and certificate to each person who buys such an appliance. A developer who makes a web application available for download and installation on a user-owned single-board computer, such as a Raspberry Pi, would need to automate the provision of a domain name and certificate to each person who installs said web application.
Why is this relevant in a discussion about a public site?
It is intended as a reminder that not all sites are public, and not all parties involved in this policy change have adequately addressed the effect of this policy change on private sites.
Why is this relevant when discussing a browser that still happily shows unencrypted communication?
A browser doesn't "happily show[] unencrypted communication" if it involves a JavaScript API that is reserved for secure contexts.
I would either send the video to them
And it'd then have to fit onto the device's storage. A lot of especially budget phones are strapped for flash space.
or invite them to view it on one of my existing devices.
Unless said "existing devices" are already in use by another member of the household for (say) playing a video game.
I thought the network security config in the Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox APKs was set to opt in to user certificates.
Please see my reply to Bert64, who suggested the same thing.
Even when connecting through a VPN, all browsers require an HTTPS origin in order to view a site that uses Service Workers.
For an internal network you typically control all the endpoints, so you can create and trust your own CA...
Say you invite a friend or relative into your house and then invite him or her onto your guest network to view a video on your NAS. Is it typical in that case to install your root certificate on his or her machine? Because if so, that would let you MITM his or her traffic later on.
For that matter, why the heck would you do HTTPS on internal LAN?
Because a growing number of JavaScript APIs specify that they are available on HTTPS origins and http://localhost/ only, and nowhere else. One such API that is both limited to secure contexts and relevant to streaming a video from a home NAS is the Presentation API.
Hell, if you want HTTPS on your LAN addresses, just generate your own certs and install your own root cert on client machines.
Not all client machines make it practical to install a private root certificate, particularly mobile devices or set-top devices. Nor is it advisable to install a private root certificate on devices belonging to visiting friends and relatives if they want to watch a video that's on your NAS.
What's so "rent-seeking" about, say, Let's Encrypt? It issues trusted domain-validated certificates without charge to just about anyone who owns a domain name.
Even if one cannot open a connection to the device from the Internet, the CA still has to be able to resolve the device's name through the Internet in order to issue a certificate. Otherwise, you're stuck using self-signed certificates, and some mobile and set-top devices reportedly don't let the user examine the fingerprint of a self-signed certificate that a device presents to ensure that it is the intended certificate.
Besides, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to access network-attached storage over the Internet. You might trust it more than Google Drive or Microsoft OneDrive, for instance, or the storage connected to your single-board server might be bigger than the 2 GB that Dropbox gives you.
Thank you for the update. The Daily Pangram 1-550 is saved.
Do the world a favor, get a certificate for your site, even if it's just the free one from let's encrypt.
I agree for a public site. But it's not quite free for a private web server behind the firewall of a home LAN. Like other CAs that web browsers trust by default, Let's Encrypt requires a fully qualified domain name, not an IP address in 192.168/16 or a hostname within a reserved TLD like .internal, and many dynamic DNS providers aren't on the Public Suffix List and/or don't support TXT records. Should it be expected for every householder to buy a domain name so that the web interface of his router, printer, and NAS can be issued a certificate for HTTPS?
As long as Amazon isn't fully "capable of using Web technologies", any company that sells on Amazon isn't either.
Which other "ubiquitous and cheaper hardware options" for fully GNU/Linux-compatible laptops are any good, so that a city school system or a community college can compare their prices? Buying a Windows laptop just to wipe it and install GNU/Linux still involves paying the Windows tax. Nor does the maker of a Windows laptop offer guarantee that accelerated graphics, audio, WLAN, Bluetooth, backlight brightness, and suspend will work under GNU/Linux. See, for example, everything that's broken or missing on ASUS Transformer Book T100TA.
That's still four, which is greater than one and requires a lot of recurring purchases, particularly for the macOS and iOS side.
Most of the custom applications used where I work are web applications. But a Chromebook would still not work so well because everyone seems to have one exception. One is Excel, as one of our suppliers encourages us to use the macro-driven Excel workbook that it supplies to pre-validate product feeds before we upload them. Another is Photoshop, used to touch up product images before uploading them. I doubt that Wine in Crostini is the answer.
I work in higher ed (community/state college with only a few 4yr programs) and we were discussing G vs MS the other day.
How about: regular laptops with Linux.
Taxpayers might call buying laptops designed to run GNU/Linux a waste of money if the Linux driver NDA exception tax exceeds the Windows tax, as Shikaku mentioned.