Many modern IP cameras have audio build into them by default these days and it's a growing trend. Axis Q1755 is case in point. Axis cameras are a common choice for quality surveillance cameras.They don't even require separate wiring, it's just encoded over the IP if requested. Do you think the government is going to remove these mics? Or do you think they are simply going to ignore this are pretend they don't have the capability? I'm betting the audio recording on surveillance cameras on the street is happening now, but because people don't ask the question I doubt many people would know. I'm sure they will see it as a bonus and say nothing more.
That's indeed a good analogy. That's exactly how I feel about blueray disks, forcing me to watch through loads of ads. Once upon a time you used to be able to put in a disk and go straight to the menu. The bad taste in my mouth means that I'll only whore myself for really good movies, the rest of the time I'll simply not buy anything. Whereas in the past I used to enjoy buying and collecting media, nowadays I feel dirty when I do so.
What I have is a div that contains a table in the middle if the page (content area). And that has a column of floated items down rhe left, to rhe left of the content area (menu area).
Inside the content is a table. This gets pushed to below the bottom of the floated section. It only does this to a table. A normal div is positioned at the top of the content area as with alll other browsers. What's more is that if I put a tall enough div preceding the table (in this case 40 pixels is enough) it pulls the table back up. In my opinion if the div containing the table is not affected by non overlapping floated sections to the left of it. Block elements inside that should also nit be affected.
It's complex css so I don't have a minimal version yet.
I'm designing a site where I'm carefully choosing the css approachs to make it work on explorer,firefox,chrome and safari. I don't have the details to hand, but currently, I have everything working on all four platforms including heaps of javascript, however unexpectedly the latest issue I have renders correctly on explorer,firebug and safari with Google Chrome being the odd man out.
Just discovered it last night, so I can't tell you the specifics right now. But it relates to positioning of divs in the presence of floated elements. I think that Google is dropping a div below the level of the highest floated element whereas all other browsers I've tested do it differently.
The spykee robot has shocking security. It has the concept of a administrator account, however for some reason beyond me when you connect to it as a normal user, it transmits the administrator password back in plain text (From memory when I looked into it). Also, there is no way to establish a wan connection point to point with this robot, the only way to do it is via a proxy provided by the manufacturer. In addition, you have to provide the username and password for your robot to said manufacturer. All video communcations is routed via the manufacturer, there's nothing to stop them recording all video of everyone's homes to disk and the manufacturer has knowledge that would allow them to come into all the client's homes and look around. I mailed them about this and they responded "We would never do this".
Finally, (From memory again), if very easily reverts into a mode where it allows unencrypted adhoc network connections to it. I think all you need to do is interfere with it's connection to the configured network.
Spykee is a privacy disaster waiting to happen, I'm just wondering when the first case of a hacked robot being used to spy on little kids happens.
I was under the impression that the public have the right to request copies of the images of themselves, or deletion or some such thing. If companies are making their video available to third parties, I don't see how they are able to control what happens with that video or comply with any legal requests regarding the video.
In addition, if the "Making available" argument can be used against copyright violation, then I would expect this argument also to be viable against any illegal use make of video "Made available" by this company to members of the public.
Well, I when my back problems get bad, I see a chiropractor and it's get's essentially cured in one visit. It works for me and I've tried it. You haven't tried it, so by definition you are less qualified to have an opinion that actually means anything.
Not all back/neck problems are permanently solvable like this, after a motorcycle accident at great speed, some things have suffered permanent degradation. A physiotherapist isn't going to be able to fix this as much as anyone isn't.
A chiropractic treatment is not "just a quick fix", it's just as much about eliminating the cause as a physiotherapist is. Except, I believe more so from experience.
When mail is transmitted with transport level encryption, the attacker would have to implement a man in the middle attack to read the mail, which is more involved that simply looking at the stream and also requires the attacker to have access to some readable part of the path from source to destination mail server. This is somewhere in the ISP and most of this is over switches, which again are not so easily sniffed, or on a host that is routing the mail itself. And as we are just talking telephone bills and not banking data here, that's a lot of conditions that you have to put together to get at risk, and for what? Maybe the odds of a paper attack are then about the same?
I can't you say obviously never had back pain, because I've known people who do get chronic backpain that would rather suffer for ages than try a chiropractor. But that's their choice. It works great for me.
Now I'm totally against quacks. I'm not religious and I'm not into scientology. I can also fully understand the sentiment of not having necessarily to have tried something to be sceptical. I'm just saying, that as someone that has suffered from really bad back pain from a motorcycle accident, that back cracking thing that chiropractors do is a bit a of life saver. And I'm also noticing that there is a lot of criticism from people who haven't tried it. I understand where they come from, but it's still noticable that these people have not been in a situation where they had bad back pain and tried it. So from a scientific point of view they are still commenting from a position of pure speculation. Which is equally unscientific.
Think about it dude. Throw aside all of the "meta" explanation that they often have which I also take with a grain of salt and just think about the effect that untangling bunches of signal wires might possibly have on the a well functioning computer system.
I've proven this to myself numerous times. It just works.
I "suspect" that part of the problem is that chiropractors understand techniques that indeed work, but "maybe" they themselves haven't been able to fully understand the reasoning why and thus the typical human reaction to try and come up with some explanation (Much like religion) kicks in. However, to me I damn well works. That's just my take on it. I'll still see chiropractors when my back or neck is bad cause they fix me. A traditional doctor will only issue an anti-imflamatory or pain killer, which does little to quickly sort out my problem.
Personally, I take the physical things they do and walk away helped. I tend to ignore some more of the claims that sound more religious.
It's a matter of taking what works for you and leaving what doesn't. Clearly there is value in being selective with parts of anything that works for you and ignoring what doesn't.
I'd be curious to know whether the scientist that is being sued has even had back pain and subsequently received chiropractic treatment. I'm guessing not, as I'm sure he'd have a different opinion.
You are clearly another person who has never been to a chiropractor. Nothing placebo about it. You visit the place in excuciating pain, you leave with considerably less pain and then rapidly it clears up.
It's also very different that just massaging. I've never heard things click during a massage. Physiotherapists massage but nothing works at getting rid of back or neck pain than a good click.
If you have a really bad back. A traditional doctor may possibly just give you pain killers. Your pain could last for days. For those that have never been to a chiropractor, which I find is a lot of people anecdotally, after your back is "cracked", you typically have lost most of your pain and progress onto a rapid recovery.
I'm heard a lot of sceptics, but I've never met a sceptic that has actually been to a chiropractor yet.
Funny how the people that say this typically have never been to a chiropracter. Although I admit that some of the stuff that talk about does seem a little hippy like, the phyical manipulation of a bad back "absolutely" works fantasically and it all makes sense to me as well. I'm not religious and not prone to believing various hysteria, but I've had a bad back at times for years as the result of a motorcycle accident, however a few trips to a chiropracter if it gets back eliminates the pain rapidly and makes me feel great as the muscles are not tense all over the place.
Incidentally, the more esoteric aspects are chiropractics I never even heard of for years, all I knew is they fixed backs brilliantly unlike the woofy physiotherapists that run you a little and expect things to get better.
Jeez as computer people it should seem logical that if you interfere with the nerve ways/signals you get problems. If you twist up tiny signal wires operating at high frequencies, you would interfere with their ability to transmit their messages correctly, it's logical man.
So far I see two very simple and viable secure means:
a) Send encrypted, digitally signed pdfs, provide the passcode via logging in once with https
b) Make the link directly launch you into the document download dialog (i.e the file browser to choose the saving location) for the bill for the month after entering your credentials via https.
Both the above approaches are as secure as any method mentioned here, but involve a single click save to allow me to get on with my life.
And we are not even talking banks here, just telephone company bills. For that matter, how secure is "repeatedly entering two random digits of your fixed reusable password", but even banks do it that way here in England in any case.
They don't have to send the passcode by mail, I'd permit myself to login via https to retrieve that.
The sentiment behind the E-mail versus logging into the webserver was all of the time overhead of the logging in, navigating, choosing options etc.
One click authenticated login to directly save the pdf via ssl would remove all of the concern that the posted addressed but reduced my time overhead again to just one click. There are many ways to skin a cat easily.
I run my own mailserver. I control my own dns. If the bank sends me an E-mail it would go via ssl from their machine to my own encrypted. So, sure I can ask that question. But there are simple solutions to the security of the payload. Send it encrypted, but let me login to download the software and key, one time however instead of everytime.
This is the ideal solution. I would be nice if they could offer multiple delivery options so the client can choose, as loads of non-geeks would of course not be doing that.
I agree. My mail server supports tls. Most people who have online mail servers connect via ssl.
If they insist on using a webserver, they could make it considerably easier for you if the link in the E-mail was a direct https link to the pdf document itself, so after entering your name and password you are immediately saving your document and you can get on with your life. Give the client a choice as to what he would prefer, insecure mail box, or E-mail or one click https link to save.
Oh and while you are at it, have the provider keep the details online in the same conveniently accessable form for 7 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Many modern IP cameras have audio build into them by default these days and it's a growing trend. Axis Q1755 is case in point. Axis cameras are a common choice for quality surveillance cameras.They don't even require separate wiring, it's just encoded over the IP if requested. Do you think the government is going to remove these mics? Or do you think they are simply going to ignore this are pretend they don't have the capability? I'm betting the audio recording on surveillance cameras on the street is happening now, but because people don't ask the question I doubt many people would know. I'm sure they will see it as a bonus and say nothing more.
That's indeed a good analogy. That's exactly how I feel about blueray disks, forcing me to watch through loads of ads. Once upon a time you used to be able to put in a disk and go straight to the menu. The bad taste in my mouth means that I'll only whore myself for really good movies, the rest of the time I'll simply not buy anything. Whereas in the past I used to enjoy buying and collecting media, nowadays I feel dirty when I do so.
What I have is a div that contains a table in the middle if the page (content area). And that has a column of floated items down rhe left, to rhe left of the content area (menu area).
Inside the content is a table. This gets pushed to below the bottom of the floated section. It only does this to a table. A normal div is positioned at the top of the content area as with alll other browsers. What's more is that if I put a tall enough div preceding the table (in this case 40 pixels is enough) it pulls the table back up. In my opinion if the div containing the table is not affected by non overlapping floated sections to the left of it. Block elements inside that should also nit be affected.
It's complex css so I don't have a minimal version yet.
I'm designing a site where I'm carefully choosing the css approachs to make it work on explorer,firefox,chrome and safari. I don't have the details to hand, but currently, I have everything working on all four platforms including heaps of javascript, however unexpectedly the latest issue I have renders correctly on explorer,firebug and safari with Google Chrome being the odd man out.
Just discovered it last night, so I can't tell you the specifics right now. But it relates to positioning of divs in the presence of floated elements. I think that Google is dropping a div below the level of the highest floated element whereas all other browsers I've tested do it differently.
I didn't expect chrome to be the odd man out.
The spykee robot has shocking security. It has the concept of a administrator account, however for some reason beyond me when you connect to it as a normal user, it transmits the administrator password back in plain text (From memory when I looked into it). Also, there is no way to establish a wan connection point to point with this robot, the only way to do it is via a proxy provided by the manufacturer. In addition, you have to provide the username and password for your robot to said manufacturer. All video communcations is routed via the manufacturer, there's nothing to stop them recording all video of everyone's homes to disk and the manufacturer has knowledge that would allow them to come into all the client's homes and look around. I mailed them about this and they responded "We would never do this".
Finally, (From memory again), if very easily reverts into a mode where it allows unencrypted adhoc network connections to it. I think all you need to do is interfere with it's connection to the configured network.
Spykee is a privacy disaster waiting to happen, I'm just wondering when the first case of a hacked robot being used to spy on little kids happens.
I was under the impression that the public have the right to request copies of the images of themselves, or deletion or some such thing. If companies are making their video available to third parties, I don't see how they are able to control what happens with that video or comply with any legal requests regarding the video.
In addition, if the "Making available" argument can be used against copyright violation, then I would expect this argument also to be viable against any illegal use make of video "Made available" by this company to members of the public.
Well, I when my back problems get bad, I see a chiropractor and it's get's essentially cured in one visit. It works for me and I've tried it. You haven't tried it, so by definition you are less qualified to have an opinion that actually means anything.
Not all back/neck problems are permanently solvable like this, after a motorcycle accident at great speed, some things have suffered permanent degradation. A physiotherapist isn't going to be able to fix this as much as anyone isn't.
A chiropractic treatment is not "just a quick fix", it's just as much about eliminating the cause as a physiotherapist is. Except, I believe more so from experience.
When mail is transmitted with transport level encryption, the attacker would have to implement a man in the middle attack to read the mail, which is more involved that simply looking at the stream and also requires the attacker to have access to some readable part of the path from source to destination mail server. This is somewhere in the ISP and most of this is over switches, which again are not so easily sniffed, or on a host that is routing the mail itself. And as we are just talking telephone bills and not banking data here, that's a lot of conditions that you have to put together to get at risk, and for what? Maybe the odds of a paper attack are then about the same?
I knew you never tried it!
Thanks for answering the survey.
I can't you say obviously never had back pain, because I've known people who do get chronic backpain that would rather suffer for ages than try a chiropractor. But that's their choice. It works great for me.
Now I'm totally against quacks. I'm not religious and I'm not into scientology. I can also fully understand the sentiment of not having necessarily to have tried something to be sceptical. I'm just saying, that as someone that has suffered from really bad back pain from a motorcycle accident, that back cracking thing that chiropractors do is a bit a of life saver. And I'm also noticing that there is a lot of criticism from people who haven't tried it. I understand where they come from, but it's still noticable that these people have not been in a situation where they had bad back pain and tried it. So from a scientific point of view they are still commenting from a position of pure speculation. Which is equally unscientific.
Think about it dude. Throw aside all of the "meta" explanation that they often have which I also take with a grain of salt and just think about the effect that untangling bunches of signal wires might possibly have on the a well functioning computer system.
I've proven this to myself numerous times. It just works.
I "suspect" that part of the problem is that chiropractors understand techniques that indeed work, but "maybe" they themselves haven't been able to fully understand the reasoning why and thus the typical human reaction to try and come up with some explanation (Much like religion) kicks in. However, to me I damn well works. That's just my take on it. I'll still see chiropractors when my back or neck is bad cause they fix me. A traditional doctor will only issue an anti-imflamatory or pain killer, which does little to quickly sort out my problem.
Give the user choice. Mom can login and do the useless crap that takes a lot of time.
Personally, I want the fast solution.
Hell I don't even mind if you make mom's choice the default and I have to login to choose my preferred option. I just want the option.
Another informal survey. You've never been to a chiropractor either right?
Another opinion based on nothing then.
Taking a somewhat informal survey here, parent have you ever been treated for a bad back by a chiropractor?
No huh? What a surprise....
Personally, I take the physical things they do and walk away helped. I tend to ignore some more of the claims that sound more religious.
It's a matter of taking what works for you and leaving what doesn't. Clearly there is value in being selective with parts of anything that works for you and ignoring what doesn't.
I'd be curious to know whether the scientist that is being sued has even had back pain and subsequently received chiropractic treatment. I'm guessing not, as I'm sure he'd have a different opinion.
You are clearly another person who has never been to a chiropractor. Nothing placebo about it. You visit the place in excuciating pain, you leave with considerably less pain and then rapidly it clears up.
It's also very different that just massaging. I've never heard things click during a massage. Physiotherapists massage but nothing works at getting rid of back or neck pain than a good click.
If you have a really bad back. A traditional doctor may possibly just give you pain killers. Your pain could last for days. For those that have never been to a chiropractor, which I find is a lot of people anecdotally, after your back is "cracked", you typically have lost most of your pain and progress onto a rapid recovery.
I'm heard a lot of sceptics, but I've never met a sceptic that has actually been to a chiropractor yet.
Now scientology really is bullshit!
Funny how the people that say this typically have never been to a chiropracter. Although I admit that some of the stuff that talk about does seem a little hippy like, the phyical manipulation of a bad back "absolutely" works fantasically and it all makes sense to me as well. I'm not religious and not prone to believing various hysteria, but I've had a bad back at times for years as the result of a motorcycle accident, however a few trips to a chiropracter if it gets back eliminates the pain rapidly and makes me feel great as the muscles are not tense all over the place.
Incidentally, the more esoteric aspects are chiropractics I never even heard of for years, all I knew is they fixed backs brilliantly unlike the woofy physiotherapists that run you a little and expect things to get better.
Jeez as computer people it should seem logical that if you interfere with the nerve ways/signals you get problems. If you twist up tiny signal wires operating at high frequencies, you would interfere with their ability to transmit their messages correctly, it's logical man.
So far I see two very simple and viable secure means:
a) Send encrypted, digitally signed pdfs, provide the passcode via logging in once with https
b) Make the link directly launch you into the document download dialog (i.e the file browser to choose the saving location) for the bill for the month after entering your credentials via https.
Both the above approaches are as secure as any method mentioned here, but involve a single click save to allow me to get on with my life.
And we are not even talking banks here, just telephone company bills. For that matter, how secure is "repeatedly entering two random digits of your fixed reusable password", but even banks do it that way here in England in any case.
They don't have to send the passcode by mail, I'd permit myself to login via https to retrieve that.
The sentiment behind the E-mail versus logging into the webserver was all of the time overhead of the logging in, navigating, choosing options etc.
One click authenticated login to directly save the pdf via ssl would remove all of the concern that the posted addressed but reduced my time overhead again to just one click. There are many ways to skin a cat easily.
I run my own mailserver. I control my own dns. If the bank sends me an E-mail it would go via ssl from their machine to my own encrypted. So, sure I can ask that question. But there are simple solutions to the security of the payload. Send it encrypted, but let me login to download the software and key, one time however instead of everytime.
This is the ideal solution. I would be nice if they could offer multiple delivery options so the client can choose, as loads of non-geeks would of course not be doing that.
No, it's automatically deducted by direct debit.
I agree. My mail server supports tls. Most people who have online mail servers connect via ssl.
If they insist on using a webserver, they could make it considerably easier for you if the link in the E-mail was a direct https link to the pdf document itself, so after entering your name and password you are immediately saving your document and you can get on with your life. Give the client a choice as to what he would prefer, insecure mail box, or E-mail or one click https link to save.
Oh and while you are at it, have the provider keep the details online in the same conveniently accessable form for 7 years.