Doesn't it bother anyone that the ***DoD*** (as opposed to the agency which "owns" the site) has the physical ability -- let alone the brazenness -- let alone the legal authority -- to do this?
And don't you wonder if this ability is limited to blocking only govt sites, versus blocking ANY USA-hosted site?
A fix is useless unless it's both effective AND usable. For this USB hw fix to be usable, it's not sufficient that it prevents UNAUTHORIZED data-transfer: the fix must also make it EASY for customers to start using the improved devices for AUTHORIZED transfer.
wrt tfa, "customers" = "corporations": they're the ones who worry about this security issue. And corporations won't buy it.
Why? Because it will be too hard to administer. Even if the new device use new connectors, effective administration will require that PHBs and security-station personnel EXAMINE the devices to confirm that they're the new, safe variety, EVERY time they see someone using or entering with the device.
After years of working as a consultant in large corps, I can tell you that most will simply take the lazy path of banning ALL such devices.
"the "Secure Audio Path" concept (which would protect content all the way to a computer's speakers, making it impossible to make digital copies by recording from the soundcard"
do you really mean all the way to the *speakers*, or is it all the way to the *(pre)amp*? I'd think the digital-to-analog conversion would have to occur before the amp -- which means there's a place to tap and re-digitize.
The following is a purely subjective experience, but it's a rationale for reasonable doubt of the the reported 8% figure being realistic:
the only good win system is a dead one. Seriously, this is NOT trolling: they all EVENTUALLY need rebooting.
What's more, USERS BELIEVE THIS, so they get in the habit of shutting down frequently (e.g., every night, or whenever "the system" seems a little punky). If users didn't shut-down so often, they'd experience a lot more eventual problems which REQUIRED shutdown.
IOW, TFA misses all the PRE-EMPTIVE shutdown which occur.
"Its funny how the "representative sampling" of the world keeps changing the moment US Politically Correct hounds are let loose"
I'm guessing that was intended for me. It presumes facts not in evidence. People who know me would be ROTFLTAO to hear me described as PC. PC has nothing to do with it; I just think that mocking the OP's (presumed) sexual orientation is pointlessly unkind. Why do it? What place has it here? What purpose does it advance?
"storms that don't even have any evidence of rain hitting the ground may be just as dangerous as those with rain, so simple visible watching may not tell you any thing."
Yes, I've already learned better and admitted my error in intervening posts. I'd thought perhaps the Colorado problem was just another case of people (like golfers) who should know better but can't be bothered. Never been there, and didn't RTFA. Was just being flippant. My bad. Bad, bad, bad.
"You can't necessarily just look at someone/something with the naked eye and tell if it's electrically charged"
I was assuming -- apparently erroneously -- that the weather would clearly indicate a risk of lightning. I've sinced learned that it can come in a "clear" sky.
why, just because he referred to his "domestic partner"?
Stop showing your ignorance. Many US companies offer spousal benefits for unmarried couples, regardless of orientation, and they refer to them as "domestic partners". The phrase means nothing about gender or orientation.
Many people, even in "conventional" relationships, are more comfortable using "domestic partner" than "wife" or BF or GF. I myself often refer to my "domestic partner" or my "S.O." when posting, because I think my gender should be irrelevant to readers' reactions.
You're not a representative sampling of the world. Get over it.
Solaris as OSS is a comfy fall-back to fill-in any holes which SCO might tear out of Linux -- thus becoming an insurance policy for the survival of the biggest threat to MSFT.
Look carefully at the expanded jpg of the windows over the fireplace in TFA, and it's obvious that they couldn't really be obscuring genuine windows looking out on "ugly neighbors". There'd be no room for the chimney. nyaah, nyaah, nyaaaaaaaaaaahhh!
Slashdot Mirror
"Used to be that you could have an anonymous website"
Please elaborate.
How exactly did it use to be?
What changed, and when?
Thanks.
Doesn't it bother anyone that the ***DoD*** (as opposed to the agency which "owns" the site) has the physical ability -- let alone the brazenness -- let alone the legal authority -- to do this?
And don't you wonder if this ability is limited to blocking only govt sites, versus blocking ANY USA-hosted site?
why doesn't someone simply enable proxy access, as was discussed for viewing region-restricted Olympics broadcasts?
and what about existing services like Anonymizer?
"I can't think of a feature a search engine could add that would overcome Google's interface advantage."
complex/nested/parenthesized booleans, a-la altavista, deja-news, & sql.
"This begs the question..."
beg the question
to beg the question - definition by dict.die.net
How to (and how not to) Beg the Question. From "On Language: Semantitheft," by William Safire. The New York Times, May 13, 2001
"the performance hit is due to bounds checking in the code, so it begs the question: Would you prefer a slower app that has more security..."
NO, IT DOESN'T:
beg the question
to beg the question - definition by dict.die.net
How to (and how not to) Beg the Question. From "On Language: Semantitheft," by William Safire. The New York Times, May 13, 2001
A fix is useless unless it's both effective AND usable.
For this USB hw fix to be usable, it's not sufficient that it prevents UNAUTHORIZED data-transfer:
the fix must also make it EASY for customers to start using the improved devices for AUTHORIZED transfer.
wrt tfa, "customers" = "corporations": they're the ones who worry about this security issue.
And corporations won't buy it.
Why?
Because it will be too hard to administer.
Even if the new device use new connectors, effective administration will require that PHBs and security-station personnel EXAMINE the devices to confirm that they're the new, safe variety, EVERY time they see someone using or entering with the device.
After years of working as a consultant in large corps, I can tell you that most will simply take the lazy path of banning ALL such devices.
"the "Secure Audio Path" concept (which would protect content all the way to a computer's speakers, making it impossible to make digital copies by recording from the soundcard"
do you really mean all the way to the *speakers*, or is it all the way to the *(pre)amp*?
I'd think the digital-to-analog conversion would have to occur before the amp -- which means there's a place to tap and re-digitize.
The following is a purely subjective experience, but it's a rationale for reasonable doubt of the the reported 8% figure being realistic:
the only good win system is a dead one.
Seriously, this is NOT trolling:
they all EVENTUALLY need rebooting.
What's more, USERS BELIEVE THIS, so they get in the habit of shutting down frequently (e.g., every night, or whenever "the system" seems a little punky).
If users didn't shut-down so often, they'd experience a lot more eventual problems which REQUIRED shutdown.
IOW, TFA misses all the PRE-EMPTIVE shutdown which occur.
"By the time he's dead, there will be so many buildings with his name on them..."
And he'll STILL be behind THIS guy.
"Its funny how the "representative sampling" of the world keeps changing the moment US Politically Correct hounds are let loose"
I'm guessing that was intended for me.
It presumes facts not in evidence.
People who know me would be ROTFLTAO to hear me described as PC.
PC has nothing to do with it;
I just think that mocking the OP's (presumed) sexual orientation is pointlessly unkind. Why do it? What place has it here? What purpose does it advance?
"I think more than a little of the apparent hostility in that response was earned."
would you feel differently without the "ignorance" & "representative" remarks?
(btw, would someone please enlighten me as to the subtle distinction between "troll" and "flame-bait"?)
I reported this story TWO MONTHS ago.
"your presentation wreaked of being an arrogant shitbag."
;)
not intended.
just saying:
1. don't assume;
2. even if he IS gay,
a. NOYB, and
b. not worth noting.
btw, i think you meant "reeked", not "wreaked".
hmmm, ok, guess i gotta cop to "arrogant" this time
"storms that don't even have any evidence of rain hitting the ground may be just as dangerous as those with rain, so simple visible watching may not tell you any thing."
Yes, I've already learned better and admitted my error in intervening posts.
I'd thought perhaps the Colorado problem was just another case of people (like golfers) who should know better but can't be bothered.
Never been there, and didn't RTFA.
Was just being flippant.
My bad.
Bad, bad, bad.
"You can't necessarily just look at someone/something with the naked eye and tell if it's electrically charged"
I was assuming -- apparently erroneously -- that the weather would clearly indicate a risk of lightning. I've sinced learned that it can come in a "clear" sky.
"lightning can ... strike somewhere with "clear blue sky." ... being responsible for many of the lighning deaths"
Nothing will prevent those deaths -- because that's not lightning, it's just God being "playful" with people who have done something to deserve it.
(Just kidding...)
"Are you gay?"
why, just because he referred to his "domestic partner"?
Stop showing your ignorance.
Many US companies offer spousal benefits for unmarried couples, regardless of orientation, and they refer to them as "domestic partners".
The phrase means nothing about gender or orientation.
Many people, even in "conventional" relationships, are more comfortable using "domestic partner" than "wife" or BF or GF. I myself often refer to my "domestic partner" or my "S.O." when posting, because I think my gender should be irrelevant to readers' reactions.
You're not a representative sampling of the world. Get over it.
... that standard apartment-lease agreements will now prohibit ownership of those giant-leaved "elephant-ear" plants?
...entrepreneurs are rushing to sell to nearby colleges, a design for a rear-weighted hat which keeps the wearer's eyes pointed toward the sky."
Sheesh, gimme a break -- people can't use common sense to tell when lightning is likely?
"Presumably, the "ugly neighbors" are visible outside the real windows"
"Vas you dere, Charlie?"
Solaris as OSS is a comfy fall-back to fill-in any holes which SCO might tear out of Linux --
thus becoming an insurance policy for the survival of the biggest threat to MSFT.
"within five years China could overtake Britain, Germany and Japan as a base for corporate research, leaving it second only to the United States"
Second? Not for long.
Students have already seen the offshore handwriting on the wall, and have started bailing out of tech programs in droves.
"doesn't sit right. The image depth is what my mind would be questionning."
Wasn't there a recent story about headwear-free 3D LCDs?
Looks like this guy would have the $$.
Look carefully at the expanded jpg of the windows over the fireplace in TFA, and it's obvious that they couldn't really be obscuring genuine windows looking out on "ugly neighbors".
There'd be no room for the chimney.
nyaah, nyaah, nyaaaaaaaaaaahhh!