but it just moves the question one step away: how do you know if the decoder can be executed in the future - will VX32 be around and supported at some arbitrary point in the future?
I think Sony is not an improvement in terms of supporting evil. It could be argued that their divisions have little to do with each other, and the evils of Sony Music (rootkits, etc.) or Sony Computer Entertainment (playstation, dropping promised linux support, exposing customers with disregard for security), or any other scandals shouldn't reflect on their cameras. But, I think similar mentality seems fairly consistent through their corporate culture. I've written Sony off entirely.
for a comparable alternative, I have a couple of Contour cameras I've been quite happy with.
SMART is good for telling you when your drives do have problems that need addressing. it's not so great for giving you assurance that your drives do not have problems - consider a positive smart result to be more of an "I don't know" than a "good". you should generally assume your drives can fail at any time. I don't think there's any way to reliably predict the sudden death of a drive.
The technical limitations argument is really hollow. It's a very very tiny technical hurdle that could generally be solved with a "SELECT decTaxRate from tSalesTax where strZipCode='" + strZipCode + "'".
unfortunately, I live in 52318'; drop table 'tSalesTax'; --
"Why are you detaining "Why are you detaining me?"
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to go?"
that first one is really important and may be overlooked due to hiding in the subject line (I do not understand the tendency of people here to start typing in the subject and then continue in the body)
No, a pulled punch is one that is not too hard. You pull back at the last moment, and don't hit with force. "Don't pull any punches" means, hit me full-force.
It seems rather silly to go from battery discharge -> LCD -> recover the light in a photovoltiac -> charge the battery, with some loss of efficiency at all steps. Isn't there reflective stuff behind there to make it so all the light goes where it's needed, and only enough power is supplied to the LCD to make it sufficiently visible?
And the rule for dealing with restaurant people is pretty much the same as dealing with the TSA -- treat them with respect and kindness as you are being served or else you could end up with results you don't care for.
Getting results I don't care for is a given, at this point. Respect and kindness is right out; the TSA doesn't even know what those words mean, looking at their behavior towards me as a traveler. I have the choice of having a naked picture taken of me with a machine that at best (if we assume it's being operated safely and correctly by the untrained goons) will only very slightly increase my cancer risk; or having my genitals groped.
These are representatives of an organization which I truly hate. As its representative, any TSA agent gets personally addressed with as much of that hatred as I am capable of expressing while I have to deal with them.
You, and the many other commenters who agree with you have it completely backwards. Your linked story is exactly why more people should open up their networks.
Fear of the police abusing their power is a terrible reason to avoid doing a perfectly legal action. Yes, it's more convenient, but if everybody goes along with the police abusing their power in that manner, it implicitly becomes acceptable. Providing internet to other people is not illegal, and not a good reason to get your door kicked in, and the police should know this. The consequence for the police not knowing this should NOT be more people cowering in fear. It should be that whoever is affected files suit against the police and the police are sanctioned for their actions.
Nobody wants to go through that, of course. But we should.
It's worth noting that parent is in response to the original summary, which seems to have changed drastically. Pasting the original here.
"According to The New Yorker: 'It seems Eric Schmidt didn't like the decision to deliver uncensored searches in China. It is reported the decision to withdraw censored searches in China was made by co-founder Larry Page sided with his founding partner, Sergey Brin and probably an internal battle for power begun. Schmidt also wasn't happy with the 'don't be evil' policy, something the Google founders were prepared to protect anytime. Schmidt lost some energy and focus after losing the China internal battle and decided to leave the position of CEO. It is also reported that the chairman position is a temporary one until he finds another business to take care.'"
That's not a stereotype, it's one of the primary characteristics of aspergers and practically part of the definition of the condition. That's more like saying it's stereotypical to say that black people have dark skin. It's not true in 100% of cases, but a far cry from stereotyping.
The law here is slowly shifting in the other direction. Good example: bulletproof vests. Who's allowed to own them? Govt and police only. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that. If it had been up to them it'd be the other way around. Make the government's "soldiers" resistant to citizen gunfire and not vice-versa? Defeats the purpose of the amendment to a degree.
Citation? I've never heard of any ban on these in the US. wikipedia seems to indicate there is no such thing except for convicted violent felons.
I'm seeing lots of comments on the security of this, but I'm not seeing how it is insecure. Users can currently install any software they want into their home directory - how is this any different? it goes into a system directory, sure, but that doesn't give the user any more privileges with regard to it.
An possible exception is if the package is setuid root, is runnable by any user, and has some exploit to get the user root. Does this happen? I can't think of what could have this, and it doesn't seem like the package manager should install such things (regardless of known exploitability - bugs do happen) Perhaps if this functionality is applied only to software that does not escalate privileges at all? I would consider that a sensible default, but don't know if that is the case here.
I do something not far off from this, but replace the Xmarks synchronization thing with the portability of the firefox password hasher extension.
1. about the same, make a long master password. 2. use the fiirefox Password Hasher extension: http://wijjo.com/PasswordHasher . It makes a hash using your master password with a site tag to come up with an individual password for each site you're on. So each site doesn't know the password for any other site, and you can either use the extension, or an html file (which calculates the hash with javascript) + copy/paste in order to get the password for any site, portably.
Slashdot Mirror
> "The boilers didn't become 60 years old overnight"
untrue! one day they were a spry 59 years and 364 days. the next day, 60 years?! who could have seen that coming?
undoing accidental mod, disregard
that project looks pretty interesting.
but it just moves the question one step away: how do you know if the decoder can be executed in the future - will VX32 be around and supported at some arbitrary point in the future?
I think Sony is not an improvement in terms of supporting evil. It could be argued that their divisions have little to do with each other, and the evils of Sony Music (rootkits, etc.) or Sony Computer Entertainment (playstation, dropping promised linux support, exposing customers with disregard for security), or any other scandals shouldn't reflect on their cameras. But, I think similar mentality seems fairly consistent through their corporate culture. I've written Sony off entirely.
for a comparable alternative, I have a couple of Contour cameras I've been quite happy with.
your link has only .pub files, though. I see no private keys here.
my favorite part is that slashdot (and wired) picks this up five months after it was news. much more thorough (and timely) article at techdirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml
SMART is good for telling you when your drives do have problems that need addressing. it's not so great for giving you assurance that your drives do not have problems - consider a positive smart result to be more of an "I don't know" than a "good". you should generally assume your drives can fail at any time. I don't think there's any way to reliably predict the sudden death of a drive.
thanks for that link.
I have seen on other articles a tag like "15pagesofads", which I'd suggest here
holy shit.
this might be the first time on the internet anybody has used the term "beg the question" correctly.
I'm a week late, but I witnessed it.
like a truecrypt hidden volume?
The technical limitations argument is really hollow. It's a very very tiny technical hurdle that could generally be solved with a "SELECT decTaxRate from tSalesTax where strZipCode='" + strZipCode + "'".
unfortunately, I live in 52318'; drop table 'tSalesTax'; --
"I do not consent to a search."
"Why are you detaining "Why are you detaining me?"
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to go?"
that first one is really important and may be overlooked due to hiding in the subject line (I do not understand the tendency of people here to start typing in the subject and then continue in the body)
seconded for namecheap. I've had good experiences with them, albeit for my very-limited needs.
No, a pulled punch is one that is not too hard. You pull back at the last moment, and don't hit with force. "Don't pull any punches" means, hit me full-force.
It seems rather silly to go from battery discharge -> LCD -> recover the light in a photovoltiac -> charge the battery, with some loss of efficiency at all steps. Isn't there reflective stuff behind there to make it so all the light goes where it's needed, and only enough power is supplied to the LCD to make it sufficiently visible?
Sorry to hear about your death. I hope you feel better soon.
attempting to deface anything of Anonymous is like pissing into an ocean. of piss.
(not to take credit for this, I do not know its origin, but it is what immediately sprang to my mind reading this)
Getting results I don't care for is a given, at this point. Respect and kindness is right out; the TSA doesn't even know what those words mean, looking at their behavior towards me as a traveler. I have the choice of having a naked picture taken of me with a machine that at best (if we assume it's being operated safely and correctly by the untrained goons) will only very slightly increase my cancer risk; or having my genitals groped.
These are representatives of an organization which I truly hate. As its representative, any TSA agent gets personally addressed with as much of that hatred as I am capable of expressing while I have to deal with them.
Actual programming will never be done in this ridiculously simplistic, underpowered manner.
You, and the many other commenters who agree with you have it completely backwards. Your linked story is exactly why more people should open up their networks.
Fear of the police abusing their power is a terrible reason to avoid doing a perfectly legal action. Yes, it's more convenient, but if everybody goes along with the police abusing their power in that manner, it implicitly becomes acceptable. Providing internet to other people is not illegal, and not a good reason to get your door kicked in, and the police should know this. The consequence for the police not knowing this should NOT be more people cowering in fear. It should be that whoever is affected files suit against the police and the police are sanctioned for their actions.
Nobody wants to go through that, of course. But we should.
It's worth noting that parent is in response to the original summary, which seems to have changed drastically. Pasting the original here.
That's not a stereotype, it's one of the primary characteristics of aspergers and practically part of the definition of the condition.
That's more like saying it's stereotypical to say that black people have dark skin. It's not true in 100% of cases, but a far cry from stereotyping.
The law here is slowly shifting in the other direction. Good example: bulletproof vests. Who's allowed to own them? Govt and police only. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that. If it had been up to them it'd be the other way around. Make the government's "soldiers" resistant to citizen gunfire and not vice-versa? Defeats the purpose of the amendment to a degree.
Citation? I've never heard of any ban on these in the US. wikipedia seems to indicate there is no such thing except for convicted violent felons.
I'm seeing lots of comments on the security of this, but I'm not seeing how it is insecure. Users can currently install any software they want into their home directory - how is this any different? it goes into a system directory, sure, but that doesn't give the user any more privileges with regard to it.
An possible exception is if the package is setuid root, is runnable by any user, and has some exploit to get the user root. Does this happen? I can't think of what could have this, and it doesn't seem like the package manager should install such things (regardless of known exploitability - bugs do happen) Perhaps if this functionality is applied only to software that does not escalate privileges at all? I would consider that a sensible default, but don't know if that is the case here.
I do something not far off from this, but replace the Xmarks synchronization thing with the portability of the firefox password hasher extension.
1. about the same, make a long master password.
2. use the fiirefox Password Hasher extension: http://wijjo.com/PasswordHasher . It makes a hash using your master password with a site tag to come up with an individual password for each site you're on. So each site doesn't know the password for any other site, and you can either use the extension, or an html file (which calculates the hash with javascript) + copy/paste in order to get the password for any site, portably.