You made me think of something. With physics and maths (e.g. software), and the general vagueness of patents, I'd propose that with certain rather essential to future development technologies, and ones involving interoperability standards, a patent can cover all physically or mathematically possible implementations of executing a particular idea. Same with pharmacuticals and stuff.
Now say Microsoft decide to patent something like this, say, develop a wireless standard and make it ubiquitous, licensing it to people for a few years so it becomes ingrained. Afterwards, they could refuse to renew the license to Apple or Linux users or distributors, then Linux and OS X would have to violate the patent in order to compete or else fail.
What if you're trying to migrate to IPv6 but still have "classic" IPv4 devices on the network?
Anyway, why is this screwing anything up? My understanding on Linux/OSX is that enabling IPv6 doesn't change anything about the way IPv4 applications function, despite using a different addressing sceme. Why would this be any different for Vista? This is indicative of a layering problem...
I doubt it'll take off in it's current form, but I do wonder why they can get such great performance from the internet, zooming and manipulating huge numbers of photos in 3D, but Aperture (and it's light table) are slow and laggy. I think it should be incorporated into other software.
My ReiserFS partitions are fine, as are my ext2/3 partitions and my ZFS partitions. My HFS+ partitions, on the other hand, are the least reliable for some odd reason, regardless of what hard drive, computer or operating system (OS X, Linux) I've tried. Even safely shutting down and dismounting. On OS X at least, it seems to corrupt under normal use for me, on my iPod and my internal drives. Very strange.
Hell, the only time I really lose data with FAT32 in my memory was when I pull out an in-use hard drive or crash the system.
I see, so what exactly are you arguing? Given what you've said, I assume it's the license itself rather than the overall effect on the community.
Are you arguing that BSD is more free as a license itself, or that developers should use BSD. They are completely different debates I guess. I'd say that I probably agree with the first one, since as a license itself it gives the receiver of the software more freedoms. Whether developers should use BSD is a moral argument, so it's a lot more complicated, but so long as you're just applying it to your work in the "This is how I want my work to be used" sense, then it's fine.
Though arguing that developers should use a particular license or that certain licenses are restricting freedoms of the community/developer in a greater sense is pretty difficult.
If you, as a developer, were to distribute it under a closed source license, then the developer, who chose that he wanted his hard work and derivatives to always remain free to all those who want to see it, loses his freedom.
From the end user point of view, the developers freedom is irrelevant and the GNU GPL can be argued to produce better software since it stops commercial entities from picking up someone's work, using their weight to put loads of features into it and not release anything back to the community. Many original creators would be uneasy about being unable to use derivatives of their own work, and in the end, the users have a problem, since now the free software is left dying as the commercial software takes off, and a commercial license may be far more restrictive as to what an end user can do.
If a developer wants to create a piece of software, and wants to derive from a GPL piece of work, then he has to accept that the original creator wants certain rights and freedoms maintained over his work, or he has to find a piece of work by a developer who doesn't mind or recreate it himself.
I'm a GPL fan myself. Maybe it's because I want the opensource community to take off, or maybe it's because I feel that removing certain freedoms (e.g. the right to shoot people without repercussions from the law) allows a greater overall freedom. In the end, both licenses can coexist, and really neither are limiting freedoms in any sense. After all, in this capitalistic society, it's the original creator's right to decide whether he wants to allow commercial entities to take his work without giving anything back to the community, or whether he wants to limit certain distribution terms to allow end users more freedom. It's his call.
I think though, that your argument contains some logical flaws.
1. You assert that limiting terms in the license makes software less free. 2. Commercial entities are free to apply very limiting licenses, which I think we can agree are less free for both the end user and the developer. 3. You assert that providing software under the BSD license is the "best" choice since it allows maximal freedom, including freedom to change the license (given 1) 4. You seem to assert that any other license is less free 5. Assuming a commercial entity changes and relicenses software under a restrictive commercial license, given 3 you'd feel that this software is less free 6. By allowing software to be relicensed using the BSD license, you are using the freedom to invoke 5 on a particular piece of software as an advantage, despite claiming that you would never want software to be less free. This could cause an overall more unfree software climate.
You want the freedom to change the license but never want it to be invoked? May as well restrict that one freedom?
Indeed. I think the main market for this product in it's current manifestation is the niche. 'Cool' rich people with every gadget known to man, those spiffy shops with image projectors everywhere and stuff to appeal to the consumer culture...
It would be good as you say, but it has quite limited uses in it's current manifestation and isn't particularly necessary, at least given the price of such a device. I'd like to be able to retrofit that camera/phone detection technology to my coffee table though:P
Well yeah, if it was very cheap it probably would have a market, but at a price any more than a cheap computer I can't imagine it being popular. The main feature seems to be things like showing off your family pics using it, transferring your pics to your network and so on, but really, it's too awkward to watch a movie on, do some editing, or even read with. You'd be hurting your neck. I can't really see a great deal of uses for it, at least no more than a media centre PC, especially when coupled with a laptop. Most people I know are just too happy with slideshows on their TV. This would have the 'wow!' factor, but I don't think it's particularly useful.
Not that this multitouch stuff doesn't have a potential as a technology, but Microsoft certainly didn't pioneer this technology, it's been in the works by various researchers for ages. And I think it's great. Honestly though, I think a coffee table has to be one of the worst uses for it at the moment. Maybe if it cost nearly nothing, it'd be a nice addition to the electronic household.
One of the key components of surface computing is a "multitouch" screen. It is an idea that has been floating around the research community since the 1980s
It'd probably work better as a worksurface rather than a coffee table at the moment. As in, a worksurface that you sit at, put papers on and has a laptop with a screen on too. It'd be great for managing the link between your work system, laptop and so on, taking quick notes and syncing your mobile phone, but it's just so expensive. I, and many people I know, prefer typing. Microsoft so desperately wants to rid the world of the keyboard but nothing I've seen comes close to a keyboard in terms of usability and speed.
I think it'd also be useful for graphics artists if they can make the visibility better.
Though, I do like the coffee table picture transfer thing. If they linked that into a media centre PC so that you put a camera on it and the display with the TV on says "Saving pictures from camera..." and then just let you be until "Press red to view the pictures". I think the coffee table screen is a bad idea at the moment though.
Here in the UK there is a program called Dragon's Den, it's like a program where people sell their ideas to the dragons and they offer them money in exchange for a share of the company. This program featured a computerised coffee table that I think was touchscreen, but the dragons ripped it apart. I remember thinking it was a good idea, but they really did have some good arguments about why it won't have a market.
Sorry, that's what I meant. It doesn't matter what method you're communicating with it, but the fact you are communicating with a computer, or recording a film or whatever.
What if it replied in French? How about if it replied in morse code? How about if it sent that morse code signal to my wireless to grant access, and that was how it was intended to work?
How about if the doorknob said "Yes", but I knew that it was mistaking me for my twin brother and that I wasn't allowed entry.
I think that, quite often, computer systems grant permission based on non english signals, such as, trying to access a file on a webserver and it being granted rather than "Yes you can access this file".
Of course, a computer granting permission doesn't mean that you have legal access, since you may be knowingly and purposely 'tricking' it into letting you in, like a hacker does.
I'm not trying to criticise you in any way; I don't know the law, I only know what I feel is right. The whole issue is full of spikes and traps.. I don't think there is much of a universal rule, and really I think there are probably certain circumstances that can be deemed as a 'misunderstanding' on both parts, rather than one party being wrong and one being right.
From what I can gather, I think this guy had a crap lawyer AND the law itself is crap.
Electromagnetic waves are not computer systems either. I don't think the method of transmission really matters, it's what's happening over it legally I guess. You know how it's illegal to film a movie at the cinema.
If I asked the doorknob if I could come in and it replied "Yes", I would actually accept it.
As it happens, I've never been given permission by a doorknob, though I was going to make our front door's lock grant entry based on the people standing infront of it. I suppose that's the same thing, and I didn't really consider that there'd be anything legally wrong with my computer granting house entry to someone.
Precisely; and some would argue that creating an unprotected wifi hotspot in a public location, for which the router has authorised access and provided network resources (as a webserver does), would count as "public access wifi". Not sure of the AP name, but what's the bet it was like "CoffeeShop-FreeWifi"?
Some token protection like WEP or the proxy saying "You must be in the coffee shop to use this wifi [OK]" would be an entirely different matter. I mean, nobody explicitly grants me access of wifi hotspots in our local town, but I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to use them. I *think* they're intended to be used but I'm not sure of that. I suppose in the same way that I assume particular benches and trash cans positioned in public areas are intended for my use when I'm sitting in the hotspot.
Usually when I connect to the unprotected BT wireless, I never checked for explicit permission; I just tried it and it worked, but it asked me for money to use the "BT Cloud" or whatever, so I just disconnected again.
Something interesting happened once. I walked into a house in the town thinking it was a shop. I quickly left when it didn't seem very shop like, but was I trespassing? Many shops over here kinda look a bit like a small house... particularly small computer hardware shops. They're not usually particularly commercial looking, tiny windows and not much of a label on the door if any. Yeah, bad marketing but usually word of mouth is how I hear about them.
Yeah, of course at the moment this requires that you have a friendship group who uses thepiratebay and so on so forth, but TV will, inevitably, I feel, be obsoleted. It will take forever, mind you, probably a few generations because people don't like change. I think the industry will need to get over itself and DRM before anything takes off in any big way too.
There was a program on BBC1 over here in the UK where there was a presenter in shock at the idea of removing credits from the end of TV programs. The other guy's argument was that there are far better ways for people who are interested to find who directed a particular program or who acted as such and such in a particular sitcom, such as using the internet or the digital features of the box. The presenter didn't seem to comprehend of a world where TV was in any way different; his argument for keeping credits seemed to be because it was traditional and TV "wouldn't be the same" without it.
There's going to be similar issues if TV moves from a time dependent stream to an on-demand stream. People at first are going to absolutely hate it, and the chances are, the first systems are going to be so raw and unfinished that they'll be hated for good reason. The current implementations are a bit like this... low quality, DRM, horrible UIs, hardly any programs, etc.
Then there is no point anymore in socialising in front of the TV, watching shows with your children, talking with your colleagues about that great show that was on yesterday.
I'm guessing the Web 2.0/whatever answer to this would be social networks where your colleagues could look up at what program you enjoyed watching recently, watch that and then talk to you the next day about it. Social clusters and genre-preferences and whatnot... Whether this is better, however....
This is already disappearing anyway, though, with cable/satellite TV. The probability that someone you know saw the same program the night before is becoming increasingly smaller, and quite often I find myself waiting for the repeat on TV or downloading it from the net to watch it so I can talk to them about it.
Usually what happens to me is that someone tells me "I saw an interesting documentary on the internet last night", I reply "Oh really? What was it called?" "..whatever.... I got it from thepiratebay" "Oh, cool, I'll watch that."
The next day, or even that night on IM, I've caught up with them and we can have a reasonably in depth conversation about the program, rather than having to wait for a repeat. Sometimes I've watched streams with people at the same time and chatted about what's onscreen over IM. This could be easier, however.
It can be argued, quite logically, that these people were not "just plain evil". Sure they did things we'd consider wrong, but for what reasons did they do this? Surely there must have been a reason, even if it was simply that they were screwed up mentally.... it may have indeed been been bad parenting that caused mental problems.
I don't believe in people just being 'evil'; the logic doesn't seem to hold, unless people are somewhat magical. Quite a lot seems to depend on your religious viewpoint.
These seem to be the main issues here: Banks and other forms of attack such as DNS hijacking.
F-secure's comment on this not being an issue for small banks/credit unions doesn't make sense. I assume that if this.bank domain was approved, there'd be a mass marketing push for "Only use.bank addresses for online banking", and quite obviously this is going to make people wary of small banks and credit unions who are forced to do ebanking with.com addresses, and consequently make people less likely to use them. As you stated, this $50k registration seems to be pointless. The fact that small banks aren't losing money from phishing isn't the issue here, and then consider that a phisher isn't going to go through the trouble of setting up a fake.bank URL, they're going to look for the weaker targets, i.e. the banks still needing to use.com addresses.
Man in the middle attacks and DNS hijacks are still quite possible, at least until DNS is implemented securely, that is. As soon as these.bank domains are hijacked (there are plenty of ISP DNS servers vulnerable to poisoning still...), either the public will lose any added trust they had in these domains, or they're going to negatively impact security by giving a false sense of security. People will *still* need to look at security certificates for assurance of identity and that encryption is being used.
Obviously there needs to be some form of solution... they could implement an extension to security certificates that allows the certificate to be flagged as safe for financial transactions; with cooperation with web browsers, there could be some way of displaying this information to the user and possibly warning them if it detects them entering credit card data into a non-finance website. Maybe more effort just needs to be put into making people look for the padlock. That and DNS spoofing and Secure DNS needs more work...
Also, in my opinion, two stage logins and showing the user a personalised picture/theme or something that a phisher couldn't show them is a good idea.
I feel that this is limiting the idea of free will somewhat. I agree with your conclusion, in the sense that randomness is essential for us to return different outputs given the same inputs, but is that really free will, given that you are not controlling the randomness? I mean, free will is usually considered to be some semi-magical thing in which a being can make decision completely objectively from outside influences. It's often linked to the soul.
Still, I find that confusing, since given any situation with equal knowledge, I'm assuming a being that always makes perfect decisions would always make the same decision because it is the "best" decision. There's no way I can conclude that free will does exist.. supernaturally, physically or otherwise..
Not quite, if you have had data sent from 5 unique IP addresses, it could all have originated from the same device. There is nothing revealed about your network topology.
Actually, it may be better not to remove entirely, since this will make the UI jump about. Generally, if possible, the UI's positioning should remain constant. The true answer would need research... but don't assume that you are right because you have an opinion. My opinion is that the way Spotlight works is better than others I have tried on KDE and GNOME, but that doesn't make it universally true.
Slashdot Mirror
You made me think of something. With physics and maths (e.g. software), and the general vagueness of patents, I'd propose that with certain rather essential to future development technologies, and ones involving interoperability standards, a patent can cover all physically or mathematically possible implementations of executing a particular idea. Same with pharmacuticals and stuff.
Now say Microsoft decide to patent something like this, say, develop a wireless standard and make it ubiquitous, licensing it to people for a few years so it becomes ingrained. Afterwards, they could refuse to renew the license to Apple or Linux users or distributors, then Linux and OS X would have to violate the patent in order to compete or else fail.
Sounds unfair.
What if you're trying to migrate to IPv6 but still have "classic" IPv4 devices on the network?
Anyway, why is this screwing anything up? My understanding on Linux/OSX is that enabling IPv6 doesn't change anything about the way IPv4 applications function, despite using a different addressing sceme. Why would this be any different for Vista? This is indicative of a layering problem...
I doubt it'll take off in it's current form, but I do wonder why they can get such great performance from the internet, zooming and manipulating huge numbers of photos in 3D, but Aperture (and it's light table) are slow and laggy. I think it should be incorporated into other software.
My ReiserFS partitions are fine, as are my ext2/3 partitions and my ZFS partitions. My HFS+ partitions, on the other hand, are the least reliable for some odd reason, regardless of what hard drive, computer or operating system (OS X, Linux) I've tried. Even safely shutting down and dismounting. On OS X at least, it seems to corrupt under normal use for me, on my iPod and my internal drives. Very strange.
Hell, the only time I really lose data with FAT32 in my memory was when I pull out an in-use hard drive or crash the system.
I was thinking it seemed almost like what LLVM is trying to do by optimising at runtime.
I'm curious as to why this HD microphone only works on "broadband mobile devices"? Any logic behind this statement?
I see, so what exactly are you arguing? Given what you've said, I assume it's the license itself rather than the overall effect on the community.
Are you arguing that BSD is more free as a license itself, or that developers should use BSD. They are completely different debates I guess. I'd say that I probably agree with the first one, since as a license itself it gives the receiver of the software more freedoms. Whether developers should use BSD is a moral argument, so it's a lot more complicated, but so long as you're just applying it to your work in the "This is how I want my work to be used" sense, then it's fine.
Though arguing that developers should use a particular license or that certain licenses are restricting freedoms of the community/developer in a greater sense is pretty difficult.
If you, as a developer, were to distribute it under a closed source license, then the developer, who chose that he wanted his hard work and derivatives to always remain free to all those who want to see it, loses his freedom.
From the end user point of view, the developers freedom is irrelevant and the GNU GPL can be argued to produce better software since it stops commercial entities from picking up someone's work, using their weight to put loads of features into it and not release anything back to the community. Many original creators would be uneasy about being unable to use derivatives of their own work, and in the end, the users have a problem, since now the free software is left dying as the commercial software takes off, and a commercial license may be far more restrictive as to what an end user can do.
If a developer wants to create a piece of software, and wants to derive from a GPL piece of work, then he has to accept that the original creator wants certain rights and freedoms maintained over his work, or he has to find a piece of work by a developer who doesn't mind or recreate it himself.
I'm a GPL fan myself. Maybe it's because I want the opensource community to take off, or maybe it's because I feel that removing certain freedoms (e.g. the right to shoot people without repercussions from the law) allows a greater overall freedom. In the end, both licenses can coexist, and really neither are limiting freedoms in any sense. After all, in this capitalistic society, it's the original creator's right to decide whether he wants to allow commercial entities to take his work without giving anything back to the community, or whether he wants to limit certain distribution terms to allow end users more freedom. It's his call.
I think though, that your argument contains some logical flaws.
1. You assert that limiting terms in the license makes software less free.
2. Commercial entities are free to apply very limiting licenses, which I think we can agree are less free for both the end user and the developer.
3. You assert that providing software under the BSD license is the "best" choice since it allows maximal freedom, including freedom to change the license (given 1)
4. You seem to assert that any other license is less free
5. Assuming a commercial entity changes and relicenses software under a restrictive commercial license, given 3 you'd feel that this software is less free
6. By allowing software to be relicensed using the BSD license, you are using the freedom to invoke 5 on a particular piece of software as an advantage, despite claiming that you would never want software to be less free. This could cause an overall more unfree software climate.
You want the freedom to change the license but never want it to be invoked? May as well restrict that one freedom?
Indeed. I think the main market for this product in it's current manifestation is the niche. 'Cool' rich people with every gadget known to man, those spiffy shops with image projectors everywhere and stuff to appeal to the consumer culture...
It would be good as you say, but it has quite limited uses in it's current manifestation and isn't particularly necessary, at least given the price of such a device. I'd like to be able to retrofit that camera/phone detection technology to my coffee table though :P
Not that this multitouch stuff doesn't have a potential as a technology, but Microsoft certainly didn't pioneer this technology, it's been in the works by various researchers for ages. And I think it's great. Honestly though, I think a coffee table has to be one of the worst uses for it at the moment. Maybe if it cost nearly nothing, it'd be a nice addition to the electronic household.
It'd probably work better as a worksurface rather than a coffee table at the moment. As in, a worksurface that you sit at, put papers on and has a laptop with a screen on too. It'd be great for managing the link between your work system, laptop and so on, taking quick notes and syncing your mobile phone, but it's just so expensive. I, and many people I know, prefer typing. Microsoft so desperately wants to rid the world of the keyboard but nothing I've seen comes close to a keyboard in terms of usability and speed.
I think it'd also be useful for graphics artists if they can make the visibility better.
Though, I do like the coffee table picture transfer thing. If they linked that into a media centre PC so that you put a camera on it and the display with the TV on says "Saving pictures from camera..." and then just let you be until "Press red to view the pictures". I think the coffee table screen is a bad idea at the moment though.
Here in the UK there is a program called Dragon's Den, it's like a program where people sell their ideas to the dragons and they offer them money in exchange for a share of the company. This program featured a computerised coffee table that I think was touchscreen, but the dragons ripped it apart. I remember thinking it was a good idea, but they really did have some good arguments about why it won't have a market.
Sorry, that's what I meant. It doesn't matter what method you're communicating with it, but the fact you are communicating with a computer, or recording a film or whatever.
What if it replied in French? How about if it replied in morse code? How about if it sent that morse code signal to my wireless to grant access, and that was how it was intended to work?
How about if the doorknob said "Yes", but I knew that it was mistaking me for my twin brother and that I wasn't allowed entry.
I think that, quite often, computer systems grant permission based on non english signals, such as, trying to access a file on a webserver and it being granted rather than "Yes you can access this file".
Of course, a computer granting permission doesn't mean that you have legal access, since you may be knowingly and purposely 'tricking' it into letting you in, like a hacker does.
I'm not trying to criticise you in any way; I don't know the law, I only know what I feel is right. The whole issue is full of spikes and traps.. I don't think there is much of a universal rule, and really I think there are probably certain circumstances that can be deemed as a 'misunderstanding' on both parts, rather than one party being wrong and one being right.
From what I can gather, I think this guy had a crap lawyer AND the law itself is crap.
Electromagnetic waves are not computer systems either. I don't think the method of transmission really matters, it's what's happening over it legally I guess. You know how it's illegal to film a movie at the cinema.
If I asked the doorknob if I could come in and it replied "Yes", I would actually accept it.
As it happens, I've never been given permission by a doorknob, though I was going to make our front door's lock grant entry based on the people standing infront of it. I suppose that's the same thing, and I didn't really consider that there'd be anything legally wrong with my computer granting house entry to someone.
Those cash machines basically grant you permission to money and give you it through their little flap thing. I think those are legal..
Precisely; and some would argue that creating an unprotected wifi hotspot in a public location, for which the router has authorised access and provided network resources (as a webserver does), would count as "public access wifi". Not sure of the AP name, but what's the bet it was like "CoffeeShop-FreeWifi"?
Some token protection like WEP or the proxy saying "You must be in the coffee shop to use this wifi [OK]" would be an entirely different matter. I mean, nobody explicitly grants me access of wifi hotspots in our local town, but I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to use them. I *think* they're intended to be used but I'm not sure of that. I suppose in the same way that I assume particular benches and trash cans positioned in public areas are intended for my use when I'm sitting in the hotspot.
Usually when I connect to the unprotected BT wireless, I never checked for explicit permission; I just tried it and it worked, but it asked me for money to use the "BT Cloud" or whatever, so I just disconnected again.
Something interesting happened once. I walked into a house in the town thinking it was a shop. I quickly left when it didn't seem very shop like, but was I trespassing? Many shops over here kinda look a bit like a small house... particularly small computer hardware shops. They're not usually particularly commercial looking, tiny windows and not much of a label on the door if any. Yeah, bad marketing but usually word of mouth is how I hear about them.
Yeah, of course at the moment this requires that you have a friendship group who uses thepiratebay and so on so forth, but TV will, inevitably, I feel, be obsoleted. It will take forever, mind you, probably a few generations because people don't like change. I think the industry will need to get over itself and DRM before anything takes off in any big way too.
There was a program on BBC1 over here in the UK where there was a presenter in shock at the idea of removing credits from the end of TV programs. The other guy's argument was that there are far better ways for people who are interested to find who directed a particular program or who acted as such and such in a particular sitcom, such as using the internet or the digital features of the box. The presenter didn't seem to comprehend of a world where TV was in any way different; his argument for keeping credits seemed to be because it was traditional and TV "wouldn't be the same" without it.
There's going to be similar issues if TV moves from a time dependent stream to an on-demand stream. People at first are going to absolutely hate it, and the chances are, the first systems are going to be so raw and unfinished that they'll be hated for good reason. The current implementations are a bit like this... low quality, DRM, horrible UIs, hardly any programs, etc.
I'm guessing the Web 2.0/whatever answer to this would be social networks where your colleagues could look up at what program you enjoyed watching recently, watch that and then talk to you the next day about it. Social clusters and genre-preferences and whatnot... Whether this is better, however....
This is already disappearing anyway, though, with cable/satellite TV. The probability that someone you know saw the same program the night before is becoming increasingly smaller, and quite often I find myself waiting for the repeat on TV or downloading it from the net to watch it so I can talk to them about it.
Usually what happens to me is that someone tells me "I saw an interesting documentary on the internet last night", I reply "Oh really? What was it called?" "..whatever.... I got it from thepiratebay" "Oh, cool, I'll watch that."
The next day, or even that night on IM, I've caught up with them and we can have a reasonably in depth conversation about the program, rather than having to wait for a repeat. Sometimes I've watched streams with people at the same time and chatted about what's onscreen over IM. This could be easier, however.
It can be argued, quite logically, that these people were not "just plain evil". Sure they did things we'd consider wrong, but for what reasons did they do this? Surely there must have been a reason, even if it was simply that they were screwed up mentally.... it may have indeed been been bad parenting that caused mental problems.
I don't believe in people just being 'evil'; the logic doesn't seem to hold, unless people are somewhat magical. Quite a lot seems to depend on your religious viewpoint.
These seem to be the main issues here: Banks and other forms of attack such as DNS hijacking.
.bank domain was approved, there'd be a mass marketing push for "Only use .bank addresses for online banking", and quite obviously this is going to make people wary of small banks and credit unions who are forced to do ebanking with .com addresses, and consequently make people less likely to use them. As you stated, this $50k registration seems to be pointless. The fact that small banks aren't losing money from phishing isn't the issue here, and then consider that a phisher isn't going to go through the trouble of setting up a fake .bank URL, they're going to look for the weaker targets, i.e. the banks still needing to use .com addresses.
.bank domains are hijacked (there are plenty of ISP DNS servers vulnerable to poisoning still...), either the public will lose any added trust they had in these domains, or they're going to negatively impact security by giving a false sense of security. People will *still* need to look at security certificates for assurance of identity and that encryption is being used.
F-secure's comment on this not being an issue for small banks/credit unions doesn't make sense. I assume that if this
Man in the middle attacks and DNS hijacks are still quite possible, at least until DNS is implemented securely, that is. As soon as these
Obviously there needs to be some form of solution... they could implement an extension to security certificates that allows the certificate to be flagged as safe for financial transactions; with cooperation with web browsers, there could be some way of displaying this information to the user and possibly warning them if it detects them entering credit card data into a non-finance website. Maybe more effort just needs to be put into making people look for the padlock. That and DNS spoofing and Secure DNS needs more work...
Also, in my opinion, two stage logins and showing the user a personalised picture/theme or something that a phisher couldn't show them is a good idea.
I feel that this is limiting the idea of free will somewhat. I agree with your conclusion, in the sense that randomness is essential for us to return different outputs given the same inputs, but is that really free will, given that you are not controlling the randomness? I mean, free will is usually considered to be some semi-magical thing in which a being can make decision completely objectively from outside influences. It's often linked to the soul.
;)
Still, I find that confusing, since given any situation with equal knowledge, I'm assuming a being that always makes perfect decisions would always make the same decision because it is the "best" decision. There's no way I can conclude that free will does exist.. supernaturally, physically or otherwise..
I'm a programmer, by the way
Not quite, if you have had data sent from 5 unique IP addresses, it could all have originated from the same device. There is nothing revealed about your network topology.
Actually, it may be better not to remove entirely, since this will make the UI jump about. Generally, if possible, the UI's positioning should remain constant. The true answer would need research... but don't assume that you are right because you have an opinion. My opinion is that the way Spotlight works is better than others I have tried on KDE and GNOME, but that doesn't make it universally true.