Maybe I just haven't read far enough in the replies, but it seems like everyone so far is missing the point and reaching for other reasons/defects/etc. AFAICT, the motivation and everything else is very simple...
When one shares a link that includes tracking information, and someone else uses that link, it weakens the value of the tracked info/user, because it's no longer tracking one user. The further that link spreads, the more diluted and useless that tracking identifier becomes. If they can strip it before it gets spread around, they can maintain more accurate data.
This isn't a them just cleaning up their own mess. This isn't them helping to keep your shared URL's shorter or cleaner. This isn't to help protect anyone from leaking tracking ids. This doesn't cut down on the amount of tracking done to users. It just improves the tracking they're already doing, all while (effectively) hiding that from you a little bit so you're less likely to be bothered by it.
To reinforce that theory, just look at the links they create in hangouts and gmail. Here's what "https://slashdot.org/" looks like when you "copy link address" and paste it: https://www.google.com/url?q=h...... they're not trying to shorten jack shit. There's no real benefit to the user.
Back to the share link thing, IMO, there should at least be a config item to set which keys get trimmed per-site, and maybe allow that to be configured by the site via a META tag.
... Steam on MacOS and seen a pretty small selection of games... I don't even know if they support Linux
SERIOUSLY!?! Steam has been one of the biggest supporters of Linux. Their SteamOS _IS_ Linux. Their Steam Machines run Linux. They have over 1k games that run on Linux (probably most of the same ones that run on macs).
Google saves, complies, and sells the contents of every email. I don't know how email could be *less* secure.
You and your parents post are discussing entirely different subjects, even though they both use similar words.
I believe afidel was referring to the risk to the security of your local computer being greater if using a desktop client versus gmail. That may be debatable, but there are some good supporting facts for that.
You are referring to information security, or the risk of your personal email data being exposed to others.
While you do have a point (google can read all unencrypted emails and provides stats and such to advertisers), I'd still wager that your data is more secure on gmail servers than many other services. There's a wide range of email setups, but they typically fall in the range of: a) admin your own server and leave mail on server b) use some 3rd party email provider (your ISP, a paid for service, etc), and download mail to read locally with local email client c) use some webmail provider, like gmail... and there are mixes in between each of those (ex. you can use gmail and download all mail to local client).
Which of those provides the most security to the average users data, and to the average users PC? I think the big names in webmail fill that role, from fastmail to outlook.com to gmail. And if you admin your own server, you'd better be damned good at it, and good luck with your spam filter (though obscurity does helps here).
This thing did 40 room service deliveries in 3 months. That's less than one every other day. It'll need to do far better before it can replace anyone.
It also did 610 front desk deliveries in that 3 months. That's still less than 7 a day.
I really hope there wasn't a 24x7 dedicated position doing that pre-robot. That would be a horrible use of resources. Just tell the chef to deliver his own food, since it's only once every other day, and have housekeeping someone else pick up the 7 other deliveries a day. This thing may slightly lighten the load, but I'm sure it still needs to be loaded up and told where to go... for 7 trips a day, that doesn't seem worth it.
IMO, that just confirms that it's only for the appearances.
If they're anything like Siri then they do the speech recognition locally... You can see this for yourself - ask Siri anything and it displays the transcript of your request on the screen while asking the cloud what to do about it.
Seeing the text on screen does not mean that it does the speech-to-text locally. It might, but it could have sent the audio out and got back the text and displayed it. Furthermore, what Siri (or OK Google or Amazon Alexa) does on your phone/tablet/computer does not mean that's what it does on the smart speaker.
FWIW, the Amazon Echo sends the audio to Amazon, as can be seen in packet captures on the network. AFAICT, they're all designing them that way, such that the speaker hardware cost is kept to a minimum (very low hardware requirements). I'm not sure what's known about the Apple HomePod specs yet, but it's 5.5lb and $350, so it could easily have the speech processing on board.
These all do the speech recognition in the cloud at the moment (AFAIK). That part will need done there until it can be moved to a higher-powered local device, and it's debatable whether or not that's completely feasible today (I think it probably is, since I could do speech recognition in realtime on an old 200MHz x86 cpu, though the current state of the art is better).
That said, none of items you noted require communication through a single broker (ie. Amazon's Alexa sending all queries through Alexa; Google sending all queries through their service; etc etc).
I'm most familiar with Amazon's Alexa. It already has "skills", which are 3rd party things that it can tie into. The skills get the text version of the request, and reply with their own string of text, which gets sent back down to the speaker and spoken. If the speech-to-text was done locally, that communication to and from the skills could be done directly. Skills could be created for each of those items you noted (news, weather, sports scores, music, etc)... there are already more advances skills in place, so that's not the issue.
The only hurdle right now is that the speech-to-text is done server-side ("in the cloud"). That is by design, and at least partially to aid in lock in (prevents the devices from being used without their service). Since that's done on the server, managing all the 3rd party skills and that communication is also far easier to do server-side, so that's how it was implemented... but that's just a side effect, and is not a direct limitation.
You quote some prices that are below $120, but I (in the US) can't find those models. The cheapest model available from https://us.kobobooks.com/colle... is $119.99. Here's those prices:
Kobo Aura Edition 2 : $119.99 Kobo Aura H2O : $159.99 (out of stock) Kobo Aura H2O Edition 2 : $179.99 (out of stock) Kobo Aura ONE : $229.99 Kobo Aura ONE Limited Edition : $279.99
I have no idea how those model names line up with the ones you posted, except for the one exact match for "Kobo Aura H2O", which you have a $20 more.... so maybe those are cheaper in the states, if you can get them.
FWIW, I also checked walmart.ca. They only have 2 models (Kobo Aura Edition 2 $129.99, Kobo Aura H2O Edition 2 $199.98), and both are more expensive.
Wearing a helmet on a bicycle is rather pointless to begin with. The head is rarely the body part injured in bicycle accidents. Hands, elbows and knees are much more vulnerable.
When I was a kid, no one wore helmets while riding their bikes. However, these days, it's rare that I ever see anyone on a bike without a helmet. The only people I see without them are on Citi Bikes (the bike sharing ones in my city).
To say that the head is rarely the body part injured these days doesn't really support the notion that helmets are rather pointless. It seems to support the opposite... wearing helmets has reduced the risk of head injury so much that it's now rare to find a head injury in a bicycle accident (Please note, I don't know whether or not it's actually true that the head head is rarely injured in bicycle accidents; I'm only noting that the logical conclusion of that was potentially wrong).
The important stat is whether or not the number of head injuries per capita is significantly lower in groups that are wearing helmets versus those without them. It is, which is why you're wrong.
Previously they had to make new versions of software to make people pay again...
Previously, they had real competition. They bought many of those. Corel is still around, and was used in many shops back in the day (I have no idea of the current status in the industry). Macromedia had Flash and a better HTML editor than Adobe had at the time, and was adding additional tools pretty quickly before Adobe acquired and squashed them. Corel Draw was easily on par with Adobe Illustrator for a little while. Corel Paint was somewhere between GIMP and Photoshop. Corel WordPerfect was a decent replacement for Microsoft Office. I'm a bit surprised to see they're still around at all, cause I never hear about them anymore.
The subscription only stuff has a huge upper hand now. Previously, when you were 1 or 2 versions behind, you'd look at those upgrade prices, and get to consider your options.... maybe having a new copy of the competitions software and keeping your 2 years old Adobe version would make more sense than simply upgrading the Adobe version, especially if you're in a shop so you can handle more file formats from customers? Now, you're always on the latest version, and your cost this year will almost certainly be less than a new full version from the competition, and you can't justify dropping the current subscription because all your work is in it.
It's a really good lock down strategy, so long as they get enough people locked in. And they can always lure people back with free versions and trials and such.
Do you, or anyone else reading this, know of any reputable free IQ tests? It's been ages and ages since I've taken one, so I thought I'd do one of the quick ones just to make sure all these years haven't turned me into an imbecile. I found one that looked simple, quick, and like it wasn't going to rip me off, but it ended with a request for payment to get the results (maybe that means I failed already, lol).
THIS. Or, at the very least, this is probably part of the decision making process. I doubt there's any one issue.
* greed/wanting more money... this doesn't make sense as a reason, because it relies on the chance that people will still get the monthly sub, which is more expensive than the yearly sub.
* seasonal shipping.. this is probably part of the reason.
* binge watching amazon exclusives (or other vids)... prime video alone, IMO, isn't worth the full prime price. If someone isn't reaping many of the other benefits, then a periodic binge on a one month sub is the only way it'd make sense.... and then, who cares if it's a few bucks more?
* possibly a buffer in prep for the lack of Net Neutrality... if they need to start shelling out cash for fast lanes to ISP's, that has to come from somewhere
If they had had a monthly option when I signed up, and it was close to the same price, I would have gone monthly only when needed/wanted.
Yes there is. You need a domain, for instance, and it has to be a fully qualified domain name (FQDN), not something like.local from mDNS or.internal from a private DNS server. For example, what would the FQDN of the configuration page of the router, printer, or NAS on your LAN be?
You do not need your own top level domain (example.com). You can get a FQDN for free under other existing domains. That said, you have a point, since that would significantly lower the level of trust (if you own the domain, the registrar could steal it out from under you, so you have to have some trust in them; if you get a subdomain off a third party, they can easily steal your subdomain, so you would have to trust them not to do so).
That risk is probably why the market for free FQDN's isn't very big. Most people that need one would rather just buy one for the few bucks a year it costs.
The encryption in SD cards (CPRM) is only 56 bits, low enough to be brute forced. The Nintendo 3DS already used SHA256 to encode it's contents so I guess the Switch cards will probably use the same or a better encryption.
(emphasis mine)
SHA256 is a one way hash. Content is not encoded nor encrypted through SHA256. Furthermore, comparing 56 bit encryption to SHA256 based on bit length is soooo wrong, and someone out there probably read what you wrote and will use it again elsewhere, perpetuating the utter bullshit. FYI, the SHA256 hash creates a hash that is 256 bits long, regardless of the data length that was input, which has nothing to do with the length of an encryption key.
Yes. I'm not sure what that matters or how it has any impact on what I said. The Book of Deuteronomy, which is the where the latter part of my quote got that claim, is both in the Torah and in the Old Testament. Did you find the name of the link to be misleading or something?
This was also my first thought. Sudan's cival war is crazy long. The first from 1955 - 1972, then another from 1983 - 2005, and now the south sudanese cival war from 2013 - presnt.
Wars often take the lives of far more men than women. Men taking multiple wives is a common historical practice from many cultures when other men die. In the Old Testament, "multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility. The practice of levirate marriage obligated a man whose brother has left a widow without heir to marry her." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity)
I strongly doubt that polygyny led to the wars. Rather, the wars (and other instability issues) probably led to the polygyny.
I love this little thread! It seems to embody the discourse for many of this years issues. * Someone takes a side on something * Other people adamantly disagree * Others join first side, still no reasons presented * Second side states some nearly-fact, and references it as why they are correct * First side barely rephrases the same fact, and uses it to claim they are correct * A back and forth ensues, each saying, "no, it's because $same_fact" * Side note: one of the parties doesn't actually believe the fact, so they can't even fall back to agreeing on that
Regarding that last point, it means the two sides here probably won't agree that Monsanto is awful and needs broken in a variety of ways, even though "big evil gmo company" is the shared fact.... though someone from both sides WILL agree to that, and it just leaves everyone frustrated, wondering how nearly everyone involved can be saying essentially the same thing and arriving an completely opposing opinions.
FWIW, I blame language, or the poor or inaccurate use of it.
As far as I've been told, you're wrong on many points... unless my doctors lied to me.
Hell, they sell contacts that don't alter vision without prescriptions (for halloween, etc)
Wrong. Those require a prescription. They may not be corrective lenses (ie. they might not have any magnification power), but they will have BC (curvature of the lens) and Dia (the diameter of the lens), and those are needed in order for the contacts to fit.
I mean, this isn't gonna get them high or harm them...
It actually can, and quite a bit. Part of getting a prescription involves the doctor telling you what you can and can't do with them in, and some of the side effects can quickly lead to blindness.
That said, the only one that should get in trouble in this situation, IMO, is the guy that forged the prescription and knowingly submitted false information in order to get a prescription product.
* sends header "X-1057" to sites * if the page contains certain strings, it flips those strings upside down for 2-6 seconds and then reverts to normal (ex. "privacy" and "control"). It'll also put an on hover box on them with a link.
Dunno if that's really the right plugin, test plan, or full list of what it does, but it was linked from the parents link, which was waaaay more to read than the above two bullet points. If someone sees the above and knows them to be wrong, please reply and correct me.
He has a right to a speedy trial.... they didn't give him a speedy trial instead they held him for a year without due process...
Being held for a year while awaiting for the trial to be scheduled does not necessarily mean that his right to a speedy trial was violated. There are a variety of exclusions (ex. delays due to motions filed before the trial, which, I think, could come either party).
The GPS was one of the ways they substantiated the claims.
How so? The main point was that he blocked the signal, disabling it, so the GPS did not provide any evidence as to his location. All it provided was a lack of evidence, which raised suspicion, and got people to look closer. For evidence, the rest of what was going on is what nailed him. Again, what's the GPS got to do with it?
I don't understand how the tracking helped, or what it had to do with anything here. He disabled it, so they were not able to confirm he was golfing via it. He never swiped in at client sites, so... uh... why not? They know he didn't right there. Checking the equipment he was supposed to have serviced confirms it. What's the GPS got to do with this?
WTF are you talking about? In a corporate environment, they're already setup to push private certs to all their clients, and can easily MITM SSL via a proxy. The corporate environment is the one place where this stuff is easy to enforce.
Will HTTPS stop a network email scanner from detecting malicious links in the email? Yes.
How's that? We're talking about a corporate environment, so their email is on a corporate server (or some cloud provider), right? And those links are still just links, and they can scan away.
Will HTTPS stop a malware scanner from analyzing a malicious payload in the email? Yes.
How? Email has almost nothing to do with HTTPS in this regard, unless you're talking about webmail. Normal corporate email clients will connect to exchange or an IMAPS server, and the client can do all the scanning it like with the content client side, and the server can do it server side. If you're talking about webmail, server based and/or browser based malware scan, or an appropriate SSL proxy will all work.
The only legit think that I can think of that it does break is cloud based anonymous proxies. Those only break if you don't trust them to decrypt all your traffic and re-encrypt it back out. If you're fine with HTTP though, then this shouldn't be an issue for you, and you can exclude your bank/etc if you want to keep it private.
If one moves past the percentages, I think the "business following money rather than race" is also pretty clear: 20.6k whites in garden city (94% of 22k) - has apple store 9.7k whites in lake grove (89% of 11k) - has apple store 315k whites in bronx (21% of 1.5m) - NO apple store
There's probably a whole lot more to the equation than any one factor (even money). For example, in most of the country, you've gotta cover a VERY large distance to reach over 8 million people. NYC is only 304 sq miles (it'd roughly fit in a rectangle 25 miles by 15 miles), and the Manhattan store is approximately in the middle of it all.
From the furthest point in the Bronx to the Apple store on Broadway, it's a 15.6 mile drive (20-30min at 3am; over an hour right now). It's just over an hour by subway.
For comparison, when I lived in other, more average sized cities, you could normally estimate travel time by miles (someone is 20 miles away... you'll probably get there in around 20 minutes). Traveling over an hour would put you over 60 miles away.
I'm won't say that Bronx couldn't use an Apple store, but it's not all that out of the way to get to one. I'd also be surprised if the mean income is significantly less than many of those other predominantly white cities outside of NYC... maybe that's why they didn't refer to it as poor, but hinged it on race.
Last thing I'll note... where do they recommend putting a store in the Bronx?!?! Look at the public transit lines in the Bronx, and you might be able to figure out that it'd be more difficult to cross the bronx east-west than to take a trip south into the city (unless one has a car... but in that case, it'd be easier to go north and go upstate).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I just haven't read far enough in the replies, but it seems like everyone so far is missing the point and reaching for other reasons/defects/etc. AFAICT, the motivation and everything else is very simple...
When one shares a link that includes tracking information, and someone else uses that link, it weakens the value of the tracked info/user, because it's no longer tracking one user. The further that link spreads, the more diluted and useless that tracking identifier becomes. If they can strip it before it gets spread around, they can maintain more accurate data.
This isn't a them just cleaning up their own mess. This isn't them helping to keep your shared URL's shorter or cleaner. This isn't to help protect anyone from leaking tracking ids. This doesn't cut down on the amount of tracking done to users. It just improves the tracking they're already doing, all while (effectively) hiding that from you a little bit so you're less likely to be bothered by it.
To reinforce that theory, just look at the links they create in hangouts and gmail. Here's what "https://slashdot.org/" looks like when you "copy link address" and paste it: ... they're not trying to shorten jack shit. There's no real benefit to the user.
https://www.google.com/url?q=h...
Back to the share link thing, IMO, there should at least be a config item to set which keys get trimmed per-site, and maybe allow that to be configured by the site via a META tag.
... Steam on MacOS and seen a pretty small selection of games ... I don't even know if they support Linux
SERIOUSLY!?! Steam has been one of the biggest supporters of Linux. Their SteamOS _IS_ Linux. Their Steam Machines run Linux. They have over 1k games that run on Linux (probably most of the same ones that run on macs).
Google saves, complies, and sells the contents of every email. I don't know how email could be *less* secure.
You and your parents post are discussing entirely different subjects, even though they both use similar words.
I believe afidel was referring to the risk to the security of your local computer being greater if using a desktop client versus gmail. That may be debatable, but there are some good supporting facts for that.
You are referring to information security, or the risk of your personal email data being exposed to others.
While you do have a point (google can read all unencrypted emails and provides stats and such to advertisers), I'd still wager that your data is more secure on gmail servers than many other services. There's a wide range of email setups, but they typically fall in the range of: ... and there are mixes in between each of those (ex. you can use gmail and download all mail to local client).
a) admin your own server and leave mail on server
b) use some 3rd party email provider (your ISP, a paid for service, etc), and download mail to read locally with local email client
c) use some webmail provider, like gmail
Which of those provides the most security to the average users data, and to the average users PC? I think the big names in webmail fill that role, from fastmail to outlook.com to gmail. And if you admin your own server, you'd better be damned good at it, and good luck with your spam filter (though obscurity does helps here).
This thing did 40 room service deliveries in 3 months. That's less than one every other day. It'll need to do far better before it can replace anyone.
It also did 610 front desk deliveries in that 3 months. That's still less than 7 a day.
I really hope there wasn't a 24x7 dedicated position doing that pre-robot. That would be a horrible use of resources. Just tell the chef to deliver his own food, since it's only once every other day, and have housekeeping someone else pick up the 7 other deliveries a day. This thing may slightly lighten the load, but I'm sure it still needs to be loaded up and told where to go... for 7 trips a day, that doesn't seem worth it.
IMO, that just confirms that it's only for the appearances.
If they're anything like Siri then they do the speech recognition locally ... You can see this for yourself - ask Siri anything and it displays the transcript of your request on the screen while asking the cloud what to do about it.
Seeing the text on screen does not mean that it does the speech-to-text locally. It might, but it could have sent the audio out and got back the text and displayed it. Furthermore, what Siri (or OK Google or Amazon Alexa) does on your phone/tablet/computer does not mean that's what it does on the smart speaker.
FWIW, the Amazon Echo sends the audio to Amazon, as can be seen in packet captures on the network. AFAICT, they're all designing them that way, such that the speaker hardware cost is kept to a minimum (very low hardware requirements). I'm not sure what's known about the Apple HomePod specs yet, but it's 5.5lb and $350, so it could easily have the speech processing on board.
These all do the speech recognition in the cloud at the moment (AFAIK). That part will need done there until it can be moved to a higher-powered local device, and it's debatable whether or not that's completely feasible today (I think it probably is, since I could do speech recognition in realtime on an old 200MHz x86 cpu, though the current state of the art is better).
That said, none of items you noted require communication through a single broker (ie. Amazon's Alexa sending all queries through Alexa; Google sending all queries through their service; etc etc).
I'm most familiar with Amazon's Alexa. It already has "skills", which are 3rd party things that it can tie into. The skills get the text version of the request, and reply with their own string of text, which gets sent back down to the speaker and spoken. If the speech-to-text was done locally, that communication to and from the skills could be done directly. Skills could be created for each of those items you noted (news, weather, sports scores, music, etc)... there are already more advances skills in place, so that's not the issue.
The only hurdle right now is that the speech-to-text is done server-side ("in the cloud"). That is by design, and at least partially to aid in lock in (prevents the devices from being used without their service). Since that's done on the server, managing all the 3rd party skills and that communication is also far easier to do server-side, so that's how it was implemented... but that's just a side effect, and is not a direct limitation.
No way are they "at least $120"
You quote some prices that are below $120, but I (in the US) can't find those models. The cheapest model available from https://us.kobobooks.com/colle... is $119.99. Here's those prices:
Kobo Aura Edition 2 : $119.99
Kobo Aura H2O : $159.99 (out of stock)
Kobo Aura H2O Edition 2 : $179.99 (out of stock)
Kobo Aura ONE : $229.99
Kobo Aura ONE Limited Edition : $279.99
I have no idea how those model names line up with the ones you posted, except for the one exact match for "Kobo Aura H2O", which you have a $20 more.... so maybe those are cheaper in the states, if you can get them.
FWIW, I also checked walmart.ca. They only have 2 models (Kobo Aura Edition 2 $129.99, Kobo Aura H2O Edition 2 $199.98), and both are more expensive.
Where can one get the Kobo Mini or the others?
Wearing a helmet on a bicycle is rather pointless to begin with. The head is rarely the body part injured in bicycle accidents. Hands, elbows and knees are much more vulnerable.
When I was a kid, no one wore helmets while riding their bikes. However, these days, it's rare that I ever see anyone on a bike without a helmet. The only people I see without them are on Citi Bikes (the bike sharing ones in my city).
To say that the head is rarely the body part injured these days doesn't really support the notion that helmets are rather pointless. It seems to support the opposite... wearing helmets has reduced the risk of head injury so much that it's now rare to find a head injury in a bicycle accident (Please note, I don't know whether or not it's actually true that the head head is rarely injured in bicycle accidents; I'm only noting that the logical conclusion of that was potentially wrong).
The important stat is whether or not the number of head injuries per capita is significantly lower in groups that are wearing helmets versus those without them. It is, which is why you're wrong.
Previously they had to make new versions of software to make people pay again ...
Previously, they had real competition. They bought many of those. Corel is still around, and was used in many shops back in the day (I have no idea of the current status in the industry). Macromedia had Flash and a better HTML editor than Adobe had at the time, and was adding additional tools pretty quickly before Adobe acquired and squashed them. Corel Draw was easily on par with Adobe Illustrator for a little while. Corel Paint was somewhere between GIMP and Photoshop. Corel WordPerfect was a decent replacement for Microsoft Office. I'm a bit surprised to see they're still around at all, cause I never hear about them anymore.
The subscription only stuff has a huge upper hand now. Previously, when you were 1 or 2 versions behind, you'd look at those upgrade prices, and get to consider your options.... maybe having a new copy of the competitions software and keeping your 2 years old Adobe version would make more sense than simply upgrading the Adobe version, especially if you're in a shop so you can handle more file formats from customers? Now, you're always on the latest version, and your cost this year will almost certainly be less than a new full version from the competition, and you can't justify dropping the current subscription because all your work is in it.
It's a really good lock down strategy, so long as they get enough people locked in. And they can always lure people back with free versions and trials and such.
Do you, or anyone else reading this, know of any reputable free IQ tests? It's been ages and ages since I've taken one, so I thought I'd do one of the quick ones just to make sure all these years haven't turned me into an imbecile. I found one that looked simple, quick, and like it wasn't going to rip me off, but it ended with a request for payment to get the results (maybe that means I failed already, lol).
THIS. Or, at the very least, this is probably part of the decision making process. I doubt there's any one issue.
* greed/wanting more money... this doesn't make sense as a reason, because it relies on the chance that people will still get the monthly sub, which is more expensive than the yearly sub.
* seasonal shipping.. this is probably part of the reason.
* binge watching amazon exclusives (or other vids)... prime video alone, IMO, isn't worth the full prime price. If someone isn't reaping many of the other benefits, then a periodic binge on a one month sub is the only way it'd make sense.... and then, who cares if it's a few bucks more?
* possibly a buffer in prep for the lack of Net Neutrality... if they need to start shelling out cash for fast lanes to ISP's, that has to come from somewhere
If they had had a monthly option when I signed up, and it was close to the same price, I would have gone monthly only when needed/wanted.
Theres no cost any more to getting an TLS cert
Yes there is. You need a domain, for instance, and it has to be a fully qualified domain name (FQDN), not something like .local from mDNS or .internal from a private DNS server. For example, what would the FQDN of the configuration page of the router, printer, or NAS on your LAN be?
You do not need your own top level domain (example.com). You can get a FQDN for free under other existing domains.
That said, you have a point, since that would significantly lower the level of trust (if you own the domain, the registrar could steal it out from under you, so you have to have some trust in them; if you get a subdomain off a third party, they can easily steal your subdomain, so you would have to trust them not to do so).
That risk is probably why the market for free FQDN's isn't very big. Most people that need one would rather just buy one for the few bucks a year it costs.
Is math hard?
Here's four sets of 9 values.
Each subsequent one has a higher average, and also lower low and higher high.
5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 : low=5; high=7; avg=6
4 6 8 6 6 7 5 6 7 : low=4; high=8; avg=6.1
3 6 9 6 6 8 6 6 7 : low=3; high=9; avg=6.3
2 6 10 6 6 8 6 7 8 : low=2; high=10; avg=6.5
This sort of thing drives me fucking nuts:
The encryption in SD cards (CPRM) is only 56 bits, low enough to be brute forced.
The Nintendo 3DS already used SHA256 to encode it's contents so I guess the Switch cards will probably use the same or a better encryption.
(emphasis mine)
SHA256 is a one way hash. Content is not encoded nor encrypted through SHA256.
Furthermore, comparing 56 bit encryption to SHA256 based on bit length is soooo wrong, and someone out there probably read what you wrote and will use it again elsewhere, perpetuating the utter bullshit. FYI, the SHA256 hash creates a hash that is 256 bits long, regardless of the data length that was input, which has nothing to do with the length of an encryption key.
Yes. I'm not sure what that matters or how it has any impact on what I said. The Book of Deuteronomy, which is the where the latter part of my quote got that claim, is both in the Torah and in the Old Testament. Did you find the name of the link to be misleading or something?
This was also my first thought. Sudan's cival war is crazy long. The first from 1955 - 1972, then another from 1983 - 2005, and now the south sudanese cival war from 2013 - presnt.
Wars often take the lives of far more men than women. Men taking multiple wives is a common historical practice from many cultures when other men die. In the Old Testament, "multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility. The practice of levirate marriage obligated a man whose brother has left a widow without heir to marry her." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity)
I strongly doubt that polygyny led to the wars. Rather, the wars (and other instability issues) probably led to the polygyny.
I love this little thread! It seems to embody the discourse for many of this years issues.
* Someone takes a side on something
* Other people adamantly disagree
* Others join first side, still no reasons presented
* Second side states some nearly-fact, and references it as why they are correct
* First side barely rephrases the same fact, and uses it to claim they are correct
* A back and forth ensues, each saying, "no, it's because $same_fact"
* Side note: one of the parties doesn't actually believe the fact, so they can't even fall back to agreeing on that
Regarding that last point, it means the two sides here probably won't agree that Monsanto is awful and needs broken in a variety of ways, even though "big evil gmo company" is the shared fact.... though someone from both sides WILL agree to that, and it just leaves everyone frustrated, wondering how nearly everyone involved can be saying essentially the same thing and arriving an completely opposing opinions.
FWIW, I blame language, or the poor or inaccurate use of it.
As far as I've been told, you're wrong on many points... unless my doctors lied to me.
Hell, they sell contacts that don't alter vision without prescriptions (for halloween, etc)
Wrong. Those require a prescription. They may not be corrective lenses (ie. they might not have any magnification power), but they will have BC (curvature of the lens) and Dia (the diameter of the lens), and those are needed in order for the contacts to fit.
I mean, this isn't gonna get them high or harm them...
It actually can, and quite a bit. Part of getting a prescription involves the doctor telling you what you can and can't do with them in, and some of the side effects can quickly lead to blindness.
That said, the only one that should get in trouble in this situation, IMO, is the guy that forged the prescription and knowingly submitted false information in order to get a prescription product.
According to https://github.com/mozilla/add..., it does:
* sends header "X-1057" to sites
* if the page contains certain strings, it flips those strings upside down for 2-6 seconds and then reverts to normal (ex. "privacy" and "control"). It'll also put an on hover box on them with a link.
Dunno if that's really the right plugin, test plan, or full list of what it does, but it was linked from the parents link, which was waaaay more to read than the above two bullet points. If someone sees the above and knows them to be wrong, please reply and correct me.
He has a right to a speedy trial. ... they didn't give him a speedy trial instead they held him for a year without due process...
Being held for a year while awaiting for the trial to be scheduled does not necessarily mean that his right to a speedy trial was violated. There are a variety of exclusions (ex. delays due to motions filed before the trial, which, I think, could come either party).
The GPS was one of the ways they substantiated the claims.
How so? The main point was that he blocked the signal, disabling it, so the GPS did not provide any evidence as to his location. All it provided was a lack of evidence, which raised suspicion, and got people to look closer. For evidence, the rest of what was going on is what nailed him.
Again, what's the GPS got to do with it?
I don't understand how the tracking helped, or what it had to do with anything here. He disabled it, so they were not able to confirm he was golfing via it. He never swiped in at client sites, so... uh... why not? They know he didn't right there. Checking the equipment he was supposed to have serviced confirms it. What's the GPS got to do with this?
WTF are you talking about? In a corporate environment, they're already setup to push private certs to all their clients, and can easily MITM SSL via a proxy. The corporate environment is the one place where this stuff is easy to enforce.
Will HTTPS stop a network email scanner from detecting malicious links in the email? Yes.
How's that? We're talking about a corporate environment, so their email is on a corporate server (or some cloud provider), right? And those links are still just links, and they can scan away.
Will HTTPS stop a malware scanner from analyzing a malicious payload in the email? Yes.
How? Email has almost nothing to do with HTTPS in this regard, unless you're talking about webmail. Normal corporate email clients will connect to exchange or an IMAPS server, and the client can do all the scanning it like with the content client side, and the server can do it server side. If you're talking about webmail, server based and/or browser based malware scan, or an appropriate SSL proxy will all work.
The only legit think that I can think of that it does break is cloud based anonymous proxies. Those only break if you don't trust them to decrypt all your traffic and re-encrypt it back out. If you're fine with HTTP though, then this shouldn't be an issue for you, and you can exclude your bank/etc if you want to keep it private.
If one moves past the percentages, I think the "business following money rather than race" is also pretty clear:
20.6k whites in garden city (94% of 22k) - has apple store
9.7k whites in lake grove (89% of 11k) - has apple store
315k whites in bronx (21% of 1.5m) - NO apple store
There's probably a whole lot more to the equation than any one factor (even money). For example, in most of the country, you've gotta cover a VERY large distance to reach over 8 million people. NYC is only 304 sq miles (it'd roughly fit in a rectangle 25 miles by 15 miles), and the Manhattan store is approximately in the middle of it all.
From the furthest point in the Bronx to the Apple store on Broadway, it's a 15.6 mile drive (20-30min at 3am; over an hour right now). It's just over an hour by subway.
For comparison, when I lived in other, more average sized cities, you could normally estimate travel time by miles (someone is 20 miles away... you'll probably get there in around 20 minutes). Traveling over an hour would put you over 60 miles away.
I'm won't say that Bronx couldn't use an Apple store, but it's not all that out of the way to get to one. I'd also be surprised if the mean income is significantly less than many of those other predominantly white cities outside of NYC... maybe that's why they didn't refer to it as poor, but hinged it on race.
Last thing I'll note... where do they recommend putting a store in the Bronx?!?! Look at the public transit lines in the Bronx, and you might be able to figure out that it'd be more difficult to cross the bronx east-west than to take a trip south into the city (unless one has a car... but in that case, it'd be easier to go north and go upstate).
at least they will the have brat stop and mars cheese castle to pay give free stuff to help you on your 12 hour shift.
What that hell happened to that sentence? Did you mean to type, "Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all"?