You can have the complete run for £20. But if you want the complete run plus Christmas specials, that'll be £35. Or you could choose the complete run plus Christmas specials plus the made-for-TV feature length episode you'd forgotten all about for £50 OR - for the ultimate collector - complete run, Christmas specials, feature length episode plus bonus unseen footage (which, let's be honest, landed on the cutting room floor for a reason) in special limited edition packaging for £90.
Each more expensive edition is released 6-12 months after the cheaper one that came before it.
(Yes, I do have a boxed set of a show they did exactly this to. Why do you ask?)
You wouldn't. This is intended for professional use.
Sony and Panasonic both have thriving business units producing equipment for the television and film industry. Things like pro cameras, that sort of stuff.
The equipment used is quite often rather different to what's available to the consumer, simply because the requirements are quite different.
I specifically said "trivial" for a reason. If I have to hunt out a particular model of graphics card (which may or may not still be on the market by the time someone who's had some success reports it in a public forum, I identify the need for it and go looking), then it's not trivial.
Where are all the Linux advocates who jump out and say "Why would you want to do that? You must be some special kind of moron to need that in the first place" when you ask a genuine question about something that is trivial on every other OS out there but a royal PITA on Linux?
I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all.
Then why don't you use an ISP that offers filtering and ask them to turn it on for you?
That way everyone gets their liberties and you get your filtered Internet. Why should an entire nation be bound to your desires simply because you can't be bothered to switch ISP?
But we live in a world where hardware is so cheap it's considered disposable. If the printer no longer works (for whatever reason; you'd be amazed how many people don't even understand the idea that there's nothing wrong with the damn printer; it's the manufacturer's own commercial decision) then a new one is on the cards.
When the new one may or may not work - and linuxprinting.org recommends a list of printers where the most recent one was discontinued in 2011 - then you have a problem. A hardware compatibility list is no damn good if all it lists is hardware that hasn't been seen in the wild in five or ten years.
Linux on the desktop has a whole heap of problems. Updates are one of them (particularly when your OS has an average life expectancy of 6-12 months), but there's no shortage of others.
Off the top of my head:
- An easy way to install drivers for peripherals. If your printer/scanner/MFC isn't supported out of the box, it's potluck if the manufacturer has produced anything. If they have, then it's potluck how well it works. Compare and contrast with Windows, which has Windows update and besides, nobody is about to produce hardware without Windows drivers.
- Yes, I know you can hold peripheral manufacturers responsible for a lot of that. Guess what? That cuts precisely zero ice with Aunt Tillie.
- An approach to desktop experience that is religion-driven rather than results-driven. Part of that is because of patent law (cf. Fraunhofer's MP3 patents), part of it is because of some sort of insane desire to re-invent the wheel every few years (precisely how many sound subsystems has Linux had over the years?).
- A blind spot to anything that doesn't work very well. Anyone who's tried to do anything beyond a very vanilla setup knows all about this.
As long as you have the CA's key, you can sign your own private key to execute a MITM attack. You don't need to have the real private key to do this. In the middle, you decrypt and re-encrypt before sending packets along.
A thought that occurs.
You don't need the CA's key. You need a CA's key. Any that is widely accepted would do.
How many systems do you know publicly announce through a channel separate to SSL what the chain of trust should look like and the checksum of the certificate they use? And even if it was commonplace, checking it certainly isn't - and wouldn't be unless it could be automated.
- User complains that the email they sent and the email they received are subtly different.
- Ethical implications even if the enduser never notices this. By all means scan email and use heuristics to say yay/nay, but futzing with the content so it appears to be what was sent but is in fact subtly different? Not Cool.
Because Adobe PDF Reader is not - and hasn't been for some years, if ever - a plain PDF viewer. It's not meant to be.
It's a fat-client application for a whole lot of other products that need to produce interactive forms that require both the presentation to the user and the end result to look predictable.
99 times out of 100, nobody needs this functionality. But for that 1 time out of 100 where it is needed, Adobe's salesmen have a nice easy job: "No obscure third-party software required by your clients in order to use our product, everyone already has the reader!".
Most of them do that automatically - they'll automatically try to authenticate against the strongest signal they can find that will let them authenticate, no matter what network it is.
When your provider has a roaming agreement in place with another provider, they set things up so that they can authenticate the phones of the provider with whom they have the agreement. Most providers don't enter into roaming agreements with other providers within the same country, which is why your phone doesn't usually start roaming when you are in your home country. But this can mean that if you live near the border of two countries and you pick up a stronger signal from a foreign network, your phone automatically jumps on it.
The first you learn of this is when your next phone bill arrives as a multi-volume set of books, luxuriously bound in finest Italian leather and delivered by a liveried courier.
That's pretty much my point - Macs may not get viruses in the traditional sense of the word, but the computer virus in its traditional sense is more-or-less extinct. They're sure as hell vulnerable to malware, which is a far better term for modern use.
The virus for windows encrypt your files and demands a ransom. Nothing would keep a similar virus from doing the same on a mac, since you don't need admin privileges or any sort of exploit to manipulate your own files.
Almost certainly would be a trojan rather than a virus in that case.
Mind you, it's a bit rich to equate "Macs don't get viruses" (true) with "Macs are immune to all forms of malware" (patently false).
It is malware, it's just not running from a platform usually used for such things.
True, but the important point is the platform in question is not OS X and it is somewhat disingenuous to pretend it is. The platform is "any web browser that automatically reloads the last visited site if you force it to quit".
Pure spin. The whole thing reeks of micromanagement and backroom arm-twisting. Plus of course, if the entire thing goes wrong, the Gov gets to blame the ISPs!
The UK government's been very good at that for some years now. I can't count the number of times I've heard of the government giving trade bodies an ultimatum: regulate yourself voluntarily to do (X), or we'll pass a law that forces you to.
Now, in my book, "Do it or we'll pass a law to make you do it" has the exact same effect as passing a law, but with none of the costs involved of setting up government bodies to enforce it and substantially less political risk. It's a way of outsourcing regulation to the organisations you want to regulate and at the same time being able to distance yourself from the fallout.
They did need to some years ago, but today they can simply march in, investigate and levy a fine. You disagree with the fine? It's down to you to appeal the fine at a tribunal.
Not really. You can't discharge responsibility just by contracting someone else to do something; the principal is responsible for the actions of their contractor.
Of course, the NHS could sue the contractor, assuming they had a contract that mentioned secure disposal.
Why any foreign company would want to use a product from a company that can be forced to feed all info to the NSA is beyond my ability to understand
Because most lay people IME already had a sneaking suspicion that governments were doing this routinely - or at least wouldn't be too surprised if they were - and I'm not sure they ever really believed our explanation of "with encryption, not even GCHQ/NSA/James Bond himself can see what's going on".
Thanks to Snowden, we now know that they were right to suspicious.
Slashdot Mirror
Because most SoCs used in these tablets are under heavy NDA, and even worse, the parts used may not even have datasheets available without NDA.
Same is true of most embedded systems sold into the home.
Yet most of them run Linux. Funny, isn't it?
They can't. IIRC the requirements for bundling Windows RT include having the device locked down so it will only run Windows RT.
I thought they'd already solved that years ago.
You can have the complete run for £20. But if you want the complete run plus Christmas specials, that'll be £35. Or you could choose the complete run plus Christmas specials plus the made-for-TV feature length episode you'd forgotten all about for £50 OR - for the ultimate collector - complete run, Christmas specials, feature length episode plus bonus unseen footage (which, let's be honest, landed on the cutting room floor for a reason) in special limited edition packaging for £90.
Each more expensive edition is released 6-12 months after the cheaper one that came before it.
(Yes, I do have a boxed set of a show they did exactly this to. Why do you ask?)
You wouldn't. This is intended for professional use.
Sony and Panasonic both have thriving business units producing equipment for the television and film industry. Things like pro cameras, that sort of stuff.
The equipment used is quite often rather different to what's available to the consumer, simply because the requirements are quite different.
Not if you want half-decent performance it's not, which is precisely what this post is all about.
just a matter of the right card and driver
I specifically said "trivial" for a reason. If I have to hunt out a particular model of graphics card (which may or may not still be on the market by the time someone who's had some success reports it in a public forum, I identify the need for it and go looking), then it's not trivial.
Depends where you are in the world - in the UK child porn is already blocked, for instance.
Where are all the Linux advocates who jump out and say "Why would you want to do that? You must be some special kind of moron to need that in the first place" when you ask a genuine question about something that is trivial on every other OS out there but a royal PITA on Linux?
I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all.
Then why don't you use an ISP that offers filtering and ask them to turn it on for you?
That way everyone gets their liberties and you get your filtered Internet. Why should an entire nation be bound to your desires simply because you can't be bothered to switch ISP?
Nope. You can run as many volts as you like over a thin cable; it's amps that would cause it to heat up and fail.
Possibly.
But we live in a world where hardware is so cheap it's considered disposable. If the printer no longer works (for whatever reason; you'd be amazed how many people don't even understand the idea that there's nothing wrong with the damn printer; it's the manufacturer's own commercial decision) then a new one is on the cards.
When the new one may or may not work - and linuxprinting.org recommends a list of printers where the most recent one was discontinued in 2011 - then you have a problem. A hardware compatibility list is no damn good if all it lists is hardware that hasn't been seen in the wild in five or ten years.
Linux on the desktop has a whole heap of problems. Updates are one of them (particularly when your OS has an average life expectancy of 6-12 months), but there's no shortage of others.
Off the top of my head:
- An easy way to install drivers for peripherals. If your printer/scanner/MFC isn't supported out of the box, it's potluck if the manufacturer has produced anything. If they have, then it's potluck how well it works. Compare and contrast with Windows, which has Windows update and besides, nobody is about to produce hardware without Windows drivers.
- Yes, I know you can hold peripheral manufacturers responsible for a lot of that. Guess what? That cuts precisely zero ice with Aunt Tillie.
- An approach to desktop experience that is religion-driven rather than results-driven. Part of that is because of patent law (cf. Fraunhofer's MP3 patents), part of it is because of some sort of insane desire to re-invent the wheel every few years (precisely how many sound subsystems has Linux had over the years?).
- A blind spot to anything that doesn't work very well. Anyone who's tried to do anything beyond a very vanilla setup knows all about this.
As long as you have the CA's key, you can sign your own private key to execute a MITM attack. You don't need to have the real private key to do this. In the middle, you decrypt and re-encrypt before sending packets along.
A thought that occurs.
You don't need the CA's key. You need a CA's key. Any that is widely accepted would do.
How many systems do you know publicly announce through a channel separate to SSL what the chain of trust should look like and the checksum of the certificate they use? And even if it was commonplace, checking it certainly isn't - and wouldn't be unless it could be automated.
If it couldn't, MailScanner could, and probably pretty easily.
I also forgot:
- User complains that the email they sent and the email they received are subtly different.
- Ethical implications even if the enduser never notices this. By all means scan email and use heuristics to say yay/nay, but futzing with the content so it appears to be what was sent but is in fact subtly different? Not Cool.
Because Adobe PDF Reader is not - and hasn't been for some years, if ever - a plain PDF viewer. It's not meant to be.
It's a fat-client application for a whole lot of other products that need to produce interactive forms that require both the presentation to the user and the end result to look predictable.
99 times out of 100, nobody needs this functionality. But for that 1 time out of 100 where it is needed, Adobe's salesmen have a nice easy job: "No obscure third-party software required by your clients in order to use our product, everyone already has the reader!".
Actually, you may have hit upon a pretty good idea there.
Use ImageMagick to convert the PDF to PNG or TIFF then convert it straight back again.
Potential drawbacks:
- Would your mailserver now become the target for those attacks?
Most of them do that automatically - they'll automatically try to authenticate against the strongest signal they can find that will let them authenticate, no matter what network it is.
When your provider has a roaming agreement in place with another provider, they set things up so that they can authenticate the phones of the provider with whom they have the agreement. Most providers don't enter into roaming agreements with other providers within the same country, which is why your phone doesn't usually start roaming when you are in your home country. But this can mean that if you live near the border of two countries and you pick up a stronger signal from a foreign network, your phone automatically jumps on it.
The first you learn of this is when your next phone bill arrives as a multi-volume set of books, luxuriously bound in finest Italian leather and delivered by a liveried courier.
That's pretty much my point - Macs may not get viruses in the traditional sense of the word, but the computer virus in its traditional sense is more-or-less extinct. They're sure as hell vulnerable to malware, which is a far better term for modern use.
The virus for windows encrypt your files and demands a ransom. Nothing would keep a similar virus from doing the same on a mac, since you don't need admin privileges or any sort of exploit to manipulate your own files.
Almost certainly would be a trojan rather than a virus in that case.
Mind you, it's a bit rich to equate "Macs don't get viruses" (true) with "Macs are immune to all forms of malware" (patently false).
It is malware, it's just not running from a platform usually used for such things.
True, but the important point is the platform in question is not OS X and it is somewhat disingenuous to pretend it is. The platform is "any web browser that automatically reloads the last visited site if you force it to quit".
Pure spin. The whole thing reeks of micromanagement and backroom arm-twisting.
Plus of course, if the entire thing goes wrong, the Gov gets to blame the ISPs!
The UK government's been very good at that for some years now. I can't count the number of times I've heard of the government giving trade bodies an ultimatum: regulate yourself voluntarily to do (X), or we'll pass a law that forces you to.
Now, in my book, "Do it or we'll pass a law to make you do it" has the exact same effect as passing a law, but with none of the costs involved of setting up government bodies to enforce it and substantially less political risk. It's a way of outsourcing regulation to the organisations you want to regulate and at the same time being able to distance yourself from the fallout.
The ICO doesn't need to prosecute anyone.
They did need to some years ago, but today they can simply march in, investigate and levy a fine. You disagree with the fine? It's down to you to appeal the fine at a tribunal.
Not really. You can't discharge responsibility just by contracting someone else to do something; the principal is responsible for the actions of their contractor.
Of course, the NHS could sue the contractor, assuming they had a contract that mentioned secure disposal.
Why any foreign company would want to use a product from a company that can be forced to feed all info to the NSA is beyond my ability to understand
Because most lay people IME already had a sneaking suspicion that governments were doing this routinely - or at least wouldn't be too surprised if they were - and I'm not sure they ever really believed our explanation of "with encryption, not even GCHQ/NSA/James Bond himself can see what's going on".
Thanks to Snowden, we now know that they were right to suspicious.