It's not that things got better, it's that price hasn't dropped, and price should drop (as that's what market influence does). Just because you can get a 50 pack of DVD-r's for $20 versus a 10 pack years ago for the same price doesn't mean that it's as substantial a drop as it sounds like, even with inflation considered, especially since the discs cost pennies to make.
The same is true of cellphone service, which actually hasn't dropped anywhere near it's cost either. It's mostly because it's a freakin cartel, basically.
Market influence doesn't actually make things better, but it does provide price pushing towards zero/free/cost, and never pushes price up.
chips getting smaller is a benefit for both the manufacturer and the consumer.
that stuff should be basically cheered on, as it's not like in a normal scenario the manufacturer would pass on the benefit as opposed to pocketing it.
still no solution for the magic "$500" price for any unlocked phone.
Those who provide peer review, if they have a fundamental disagreement or a personal issue that is non-professional, could use that to discredit legitimate research.
let me try to be straightforward. A confidentiality agreement cannot stop someone from moving from one company to another under any circumstances. If it did, you wouldn't have people moving from lobbyists to government positions or vice versa, for example. The uh was "uh this is stupid"
that won't stop anyone from anything. prove or disprove means in his case, that they (HP) cannot do anything about it, either. HP has zero standing to sue for anything on this. What you're saying not being able to be proven means its legal for him, and thus he can do it. This isn't difficult here, I don't know why you can't wrap your head around it.
generally speaking, resolution has been going up and up. Look at apple's "retina" display and how well it does. I don't think it's unreasonable to look for 1080p capability on a phone, and it also thankfully means that it will be a push away from bluray as well.
who said there wasn't any room to improve? try reading the comments again. I didn't say it can't get better, but to declare it secure is another statement altogether.
More secure, that's a legitimate statement. But "securing the internet"? please.
confidentiality means nothing. Really they're citing news articles as their reasoning for the suit.
what HP is trying to due here, is a: trying to make Hurd look bad and b: try to extract money from oracle by forcing them to settle. Why bother with A? I'm quite certain that if he's not found guilty he could actually sue HP for libel on this one, citing the complaint.
They're trying to claim misappropriation of trade secrets, but considering he has been at HP maybe a week? They have nothing to show for it at all.
Really, HP has to be out of their minds to do this.
If physical security is compromised (and it can, has been, and always will be), then the rest of the security is entirely and completely ineffective.
Since even a military base has weaknesses for physical security, there really isn't a solution.
This isn't an advertisement for anarchy, it's just reality.
Want to know what the best thing is that can be done for security? Best practices. Create them, know them, have everyone follow them. Why? Because it's the (best) you can do.
models like slashdot sound great but it's incredibly easy for people to poopsock moderation and game the system. That's the problem with any ratings system - someone needs to be able to nix the moderation, but that person now becomes the one with the questionable bias.
Stanford's solution is good as long as they're willing to accept that information will be outdated and/or it won't be complete. It also depends on the format they use.
also, the franklin statement is very very accurate, and very much a concern when it comes to the US government, which is well known to throw around abuse of power and let judges settle the constitutionality of their horrible decisions in the first place.
The government clamoring for more security tells people that a: they want to monitor everything, b: they want to control everything, and c: who cares about the actual citizens of the US?
Forget the republican angle on it, this has been a corruption issue more than 30 years in the making at this point.
nobody said the current situation can't be made better. That has absolutely nothing to do with the statements at hand.
Assuming you can make anything secure, however, is a completely false statement, and is specifically what was said. "We're going to secure the internet" is likewise a false statement.
if you read the summary about "Securing the internet" you'd know that the comment by this individual, technical or not, would give you the impression that he's a fucking moron.
I'm sure he's good at what he does, but "securing the internet" is not and will never be one of those things. Even DNSSEC and IPv6 do nothing for "Security", because they haven't gotten back the original security issue: computers and/or users. Adding encryption, adding anything to allow anonymity and all you do is make it easier to poke holes in security. Get rid of anonymity and all you do is make it easier for people to use fraudulent identities since it assumes that nobody can be anonymous, which is also impossible. You're at the PC, and I'm behind you telling you what to do? Guess what, I'm anonymous.
Considering that security goes beyond the internet, shows how impossible the idea is. This is not even remotely reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
apparently you didn't miss the "able to code", part, huh?
That didn't mean it applied to everyone. thanks for the troll!
and? They could fork it.
I think people forget that it's open source, so it's easily modified.
Able to code, and spot a vulnerability? Fix it yourself!
Miguel used to do good work, and now he has mission creep. That's why we say get rid of him, and appropriately so.
Maybe when he's free of influence and can go back to doing what he wants he'll stop supporting mono and start doing more real and good things.
or, maybe it's just that a hyped and debunked article is reposted yet again?
it's actually a humorously bad decision to make.
If this goes through it'd be even easier to point out that the label says 3 different kinds of sugar are being put in products that don't need it.
Some folks don't pay attention because it says syrup, but if you see corn sugar, cane sugar, and fruit sugar, well, gee.
how is this hard for you to understand?
It's not that things got better, it's that price hasn't dropped, and price should drop (as that's what market influence does). Just because you can get a 50 pack of DVD-r's for $20 versus a 10 pack years ago for the same price doesn't mean that it's as substantial a drop as it sounds like, even with inflation considered, especially since the discs cost pennies to make.
The same is true of cellphone service, which actually hasn't dropped anywhere near it's cost either. It's mostly because it's a freakin cartel, basically.
Market influence doesn't actually make things better, but it does provide price pushing towards zero/free/cost, and never pushes price up.
really?
There are plenty of people who have legitimate movies but are fucked by HDCP. Such scenarios have zero to do with HDCP.
godaddy also has probably half of all the spam domains that exist - due to their lovely "auto-register a domain you searched for" shit.
chips getting smaller is a benefit for both the manufacturer and the consumer.
that stuff should be basically cheered on, as it's not like in a normal scenario the manufacturer would pass on the benefit as opposed to pocketing it.
still no solution for the magic "$500" price for any unlocked phone.
it still has the same issue.
Those who provide peer review, if they have a fundamental disagreement or a personal issue that is non-professional, could use that to discredit legitimate research.
let me try to be straightforward. A confidentiality agreement cannot stop someone from moving from one company to another under any circumstances. If it did, you wouldn't have people moving from lobbyists to government positions or vice versa, for example. The uh was "uh this is stupid"
that won't stop anyone from anything. prove or disprove means in his case, that they (HP) cannot do anything about it, either. HP has zero standing to sue for anything on this. What you're saying not being able to be proven means its legal for him, and thus he can do it. This isn't difficult here, I don't know why you can't wrap your head around it.
generally speaking, resolution has been going up and up. Look at apple's "retina" display and how well it does. I don't think it's unreasonable to look for 1080p capability on a phone, and it also thankfully means that it will be a push away from bluray as well.
okay, you missed one part of this.
How is oracle going to prove he's using their secrets?
Given that he knows what "secrets" those are, it's going to be damn near impossible to prove it. It's not like they can probe his brain.
It can be denied so easily that it's not even worth trying to imply.
uh, because noncompete agreements could bind him when he works for other people, and a confidentiality cannot?
who said there wasn't any room to improve? try reading the comments again. I didn't say it can't get better, but to declare it secure is another statement altogether.
More secure, that's a legitimate statement. But "securing the internet"? please.
additional note: whether to be able to sue successfully is anyone's guess. But I wonder if he would have a libel case in such an instance.
bingo.
confidentiality means nothing. Really they're citing news articles as their reasoning for the suit.
what HP is trying to due here, is a: trying to make Hurd look bad and b: try to extract money from oracle by forcing them to settle. Why bother with A? I'm quite certain that if he's not found guilty he could actually sue HP for libel on this one, citing the complaint.
They're trying to claim misappropriation of trade secrets, but considering he has been at HP maybe a week? They have nothing to show for it at all.
Really, HP has to be out of their minds to do this.
Look, it all goes back to the same reality.
If physical security is compromised (and it can, has been, and always will be), then the rest of the security is entirely and completely ineffective.
Since even a military base has weaknesses for physical security, there really isn't a solution.
This isn't an advertisement for anarchy, it's just reality.
Want to know what the best thing is that can be done for security? Best practices. Create them, know them, have everyone follow them. Why? Because it's the (best) you can do.
models like slashdot sound great but it's incredibly easy for people to poopsock moderation and game the system. That's the problem with any ratings system - someone needs to be able to nix the moderation, but that person now becomes the one with the questionable bias.
Stanford's solution is good as long as they're willing to accept that information will be outdated and/or it won't be complete. It also depends on the format they use.
who said convenience foods are the only things that have HFCS? Where do you make that up?
Yogurt has HFCS, bread has HFCS.
If you think you're going to bake your bread, make your own yogurt, and never eat at a restaurant, good luck with that.
also, the franklin statement is very very accurate, and very much a concern when it comes to the US government, which is well known to throw around abuse of power and let judges settle the constitutionality of their horrible decisions in the first place.
The government clamoring for more security tells people that a: they want to monitor everything, b: they want to control everything, and c: who cares about the actual citizens of the US?
Forget the republican angle on it, this has been a corruption issue more than 30 years in the making at this point.
nobody said the current situation can't be made better. That has absolutely nothing to do with the statements at hand.
Assuming you can make anything secure, however, is a completely false statement, and is specifically what was said. "We're going to secure the internet" is likewise a false statement.
if you read the summary about "Securing the internet" you'd know that the comment by this individual, technical or not, would give you the impression that he's a fucking moron.
I'm sure he's good at what he does, but "securing the internet" is not and will never be one of those things.
Even DNSSEC and IPv6 do nothing for "Security", because they haven't gotten back the original security issue: computers and/or users. Adding encryption, adding anything to allow anonymity and all you do is make it easier to poke holes in security. Get rid of anonymity and all you do is make it easier for people to use fraudulent identities since it assumes that nobody can be anonymous, which is also impossible. You're at the PC, and I'm behind you telling you what to do? Guess what, I'm anonymous.
Considering that security goes beyond the internet, shows how impossible the idea is. This is not even remotely reasonable.