In order to be useful to the electricity company, the company needs to be able to decide when to charge and when to discharge the cars batteries (depending of overall need, and availability of finicky renewable sources).
... and so it just happens that you'll start your holiday trip with almost empty batteries although (or rather: because...) the car was plugged in all night.
Okay let's learn: Windows is a Microkernel and Linux is a Monolithic kernel - fundamentally different approaches to OS architecture.
Pigs can fly and cows are ruminants - fundamentally different animals. Which one do you think is more difficult to catch, and thus less chance of making you as fat as a whale?
Hell, yeah, with my tone biceps and defined abs and my "I work on my backyard, with my torso naked, each weekend" tan , I am definitively to hot for that;)
Indeed, sounds hot. Any chest hair with that? Photo?
Firefox 9 bug
Oops, here I go off the internet for just five minutes, and when I come back, Firefox has jumped 3 major versions...
I do not know why but when I turned 30 some years ago, coffee started to hit me more than any hard stimulant that I ever tried in college; now when I drink coffee, I write like a methhead
Lucky you. For me, coffee seems to have less and less effect the older I get. Fortunately, there's Red Bull, which still seems to keep some of its power...
Not if one of those depends (exclusively) on the ABC Gov. Of course, ABC and XYZ could always collude, but this makes the situation safer than the alternative, where XYZ could pull it off on its own.
Would someone who took over the domain be able to communicate which certificate and thus which CA is to be used?
Depends on exactly what you mean by "took over the domain". If you mean, the attacker somehow managed to corrupt the actual DNS server of the domain, then sure.
But most attackers don't do that. Indeed, if the attacker has such prowess, why not infiltrate the web server directly?
Instead, most attackers try to attack name servers nearer to the browser instead (such as in the user's vulnerable network router). And with DNSSEC, they now face the hurdle that they not only need to forge a certificate signed by any CA of his choosing among the hundreds trusted by most browsers, but that he must also first forge another certificate signed by one specific entity (the parent of the target domain).
So, DNSSEC used in such a way is still more secure than just CA certificates alone.
ow if you excuse me I'll have to crash the moon into earth before I have to repeat this rant any more times.
maybe if you crashed the moon into earth, all those stupid earthlings would stop crashing their rockets between the moons, and the epidemic might stop...
Is it the customer's business to check who has, and who hasn't authority to make a deal? How am I supposed to know whether my car salesman is authorized to negotiate on the price? The computer assembler? The oriental carpet dealer? The phone salesman?
In most places, if a peon oversteps his authority to offer too good a deal to a customer, they settle that internally and don't bother the customer. It's not as if he wasn't found out at the end of the day...
Seller wants $50.
You instead hand the seller $40, but the seller still hands you the merchandise without comment. Looks like he accepted your counteroffer...
Yeah, you can't unilaterally change the terms of service for a site you're using.
Neither can a site unilaterally impose terms on its visitors. They are free to submit a counter offer. It's called negotiation. Tough luck if their computer is programmed to ignore such counter offers. But they win with most other users who are "programmed" to click OK on the TOS without reading it, much less understanding it.
So, if the company can say: "sorry our computer ignored your counter offer", then users can say "sorry, I was in a hurry, and just blindly clicked OK to make the thing work".
Ok, so any clause "the software publisher owes the user $1000000 for his valuable system testing services" that the user inserted is void, because no human on the publisher's end agreed to it. Fair enough.
But so is any clause such as "we may sell the user's private data to any party we want", because the user didn't agree to the contract either. Indeed, he made a counteroffer.
So, basically, in this situation, there is no contract at all: the user is not bound to any clauses specified in the TOS, and the service provider is not bound to any clauses specified in the user's amended TOS. Instead their relationship is government by the general laws (data protection laws, copyright laws, anti "hacking" laws...)
the party that drafted the contract has to accept any strike outs as well.
Likewise, the party that did not draft the contract has to accept it too. Which in this case, it did not (because it made a counter offer). So, we're basically back to a situation where no specific contract exists between the parties, so any relationship between them is governed by the general laws, rather than any clauses in a "contract" to which one party did not agree.
and the markets are currently down... where should the people go to show their rage at the people disrupting the markets?
People should go near their PC, and profit from the opportunity to buy shares for cheap. If indeed the reason that the markets are down is the protests (doubtful...), then they will surely rise again when the protests are over, providing a nice opportunity for a quick buck...
If on the the other hand, the markets are down due to different reasons (more probably... European and US debt crisises), now is maybe time to join the protests, and try to effect a change...
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, image doesn't enforce "same origin" either, and the server (of the frame) can stil introduce the needed padding into the URL...
==> silly
to create a fruitful environment for their kids.
... but don't let that environment be too fruitful. You also want grandkids after all...
You drop the condom only after a negative test.
Okay let's learn: Windows is a Microkernel and Linux is a Monolithic kernel - fundamentally different approaches to OS architecture.
Pigs can fly and cows are ruminants - fundamentally different animals. Which one do you think is more difficult to catch, and thus less chance of making you as fat as a whale?
Hint: don't feed the trolls...
Hell, yeah, with my tone biceps and defined abs and my "I work on my backyard, with my torso naked, each weekend" tan , I am definitively to hot for that ;)
Indeed, sounds hot. Any chest hair with that? Photo?
Firefox 9 bug
Oops, here I go off the internet for just five minutes, and when I come back, Firefox has jumped 3 major versions...
I do not know why but when I turned 30 some years ago, coffee started to hit me more than any hard stimulant that I ever tried in college; now when I drink coffee, I write like a methhead
Lucky you. For me, coffee seems to have less and less effect the older I get. Fortunately, there's Red Bull, which still seems to keep some of its power...
But can't the XYZ Gov get all those signed?
Not if one of those depends (exclusively) on the ABC Gov. Of course, ABC and XYZ could always collude, but this makes the situation safer than the alternative, where XYZ could pull it off on its own.
yay, the sup html tag is to hot for Slashdot a site for supposed nerd.....
And apparently, you are too sexy for preview...
So, you're in the second case. Thanks for clarifying. Then continue reading paragraphs 3 and 4.
Would someone who took over the domain be able to communicate which certificate and thus which CA is to be used?
Depends on exactly what you mean by "took over the domain". If you mean, the attacker somehow managed to corrupt the actual DNS server of the domain, then sure.
But most attackers don't do that. Indeed, if the attacker has such prowess, why not infiltrate the web server directly?
Instead, most attackers try to attack name servers nearer to the browser instead (such as in the user's vulnerable network router). And with DNSSEC, they now face the hurdle that they not only need to forge a certificate signed by any CA of his choosing among the hundreds trusted by most browsers, but that he must also first forge another certificate signed by one specific entity (the parent of the target domain).
So, DNSSEC used in such a way is still more secure than just CA certificates alone.
Moreover, if you need to fiddle around too much, the rod may have become limp again before you've got it on, spoling all the fun...
Why do you think marriage would protect you from getting AIDS?
Because he doesn't believe in adultery, divorce or premarital sex.
but a marriage contract does have an effect on the likelihood of a couple staying together.
Not necessarily. Kids do. And unfortunately, those who are not allowed to marry can't have their own kids, and aren't allowed to adopt kids.
ow if you excuse me I'll have to crash the moon into earth before I have to repeat this rant any more times.
maybe if you crashed the moon into earth, all those stupid earthlings would stop crashing their rockets between the moons, and the epidemic might stop...
The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested.
You know that. I know that. But try telling that to all the zillion word users out there...
They now do now make a difference between "close friends" and just "friends"...
In most places, if a peon oversteps his authority to offer too good a deal to a customer, they settle that internally and don't bother the customer. It's not as if he wasn't found out at the end of the day...
Seller wants $50.
You instead hand the seller $40, but the seller still hands you the merchandise without comment. Looks like he accepted your counteroffer...
Yeah, you can't unilaterally change the terms of service for a site you're using.
Neither can a site unilaterally impose terms on its visitors. They are free to submit a counter offer. It's called negotiation. Tough luck if their computer is programmed to ignore such counter offers. But they win with most other users who are "programmed" to click OK on the TOS without reading it, much less understanding it.
So, if the company can say: "sorry our computer ignored your counter offer", then users can say "sorry, I was in a hurry, and just blindly clicked OK to make the thing work".
But so is any clause such as "we may sell the user's private data to any party we want", because the user didn't agree to the contract either. Indeed, he made a counteroffer.
So, basically, in this situation, there is no contract at all: the user is not bound to any clauses specified in the TOS, and the service provider is not bound to any clauses specified in the user's amended TOS. Instead their relationship is government by the general laws (data protection laws, copyright laws, anti "hacking" laws...)
the party that drafted the contract has to accept any strike outs as well.
Likewise, the party that did not draft the contract has to accept it too. Which in this case, it did not (because it made a counter offer). So, we're basically back to a situation where no specific contract exists between the parties, so any relationship between them is governed by the general laws, rather than any clauses in a "contract" to which one party did not agree.
This is obviously not enforceable in court.
Quite true. This is the point.
Where can you plug your notebook in on the street?
Have you never heard of Wifi? Or you just plug it in at the same place where you get your booze.
The real question however: how did the FBI know it was him? Whatever method of connection he used was certainly being used by other people too...
he was too far along to pull out. (Like that’s never happened before.).
All good things in life happen thrice...
and the markets are currently down... where should the people go to show their rage at the people disrupting the markets?
People should go near their PC, and profit from the opportunity to buy shares for cheap. If indeed the reason that the markets are down is the protests (doubtful...), then they will surely rise again when the protests are over, providing a nice opportunity for a quick buck...
If on the the other hand, the markets are down due to different reasons (more probably... European and US debt crisises), now is maybe time to join the protests, and try to effect a change...