Oh I should add that there is a big difference between the Hobbit cinema HFR and HD displays that I have seen. I don't know whether this is due to compression of fast moving artefacts or physical persistence in the monitors but it is clearly very different.
people who complain about higher framerates never seem to have a justification other than 'it's not what I'm used to'. What about the 48fps made it suck? Please avoid using 'audiophile-like' subjective/emotional terms.
I ended up liking it by the end of the film, but the "in your face" realism was quite a shock at first. I went into it thinking that there would not be much difference but movements seem much more abrupt and real, and facial expressions seem more lifelike. I put this down to seeing every micro-expression, each twitch of the eye or slight tremble on a smile. I can see that some people wouldn't like it; probably a "Cal Lightman" would get sick of seeing the expression of fear in seeing an Orc was really hiding an "oh no this is the twenty-third take and I'm getting hungry".
If this is correct it is the second time an organism has wiped out most existing life forms The Great Oxygenation Event is thought to have killed most existing forms of life - then single-celled organisms. It makes you wonder, could it happen again - a bacteria completely changing Earth's chemistry in a way that's incompatible with most existing life forms?
Possible, yes, but in that case the advantage of using a CA is gone and I get at least the same level of security due to self-signing and verifying. Also since you suggest to sign it myselft to gain this security, you agree that this self-signing adds to safety (although you disguise your consent by rephrasing it from "self-signing" to "double-signing yourself")
I think you are losing track of what I asserted, that it is ridiculous to say that self signed certificates are more secure than CA signed, as you can do anything you can with a self-signed certificate with a CA signed one.
Anyone who argues that a self-signed certificate can be more secure is an idiot. In some circumstances it can be as secure, for example a point to point connection where the client knows the individual certificate (public key stored locally) and verifies it. Obviously google is not going to collect everyone's public certificate and load it into a key store, so in this case it is much less secure and sibject to a MITM attack.
If I rely on CAs and an attacker gets a certificate signed for my domain, couldn't he use it for a MITM-attack? How could he do that if I have my self signed certificate and do not give any credibility to CAs?
There is nothing to prevent you from manually checking a CA signed certificate against a known key, or even double-signing it yourself and ensuring that it validates against your own signing certificate
I would argue and better qualified people than I would agree, that self signed certs are actually more secure for uses like this.
You may argue, and more qualified than you may argue, but that doesn't mean they are qualified.
Anyone who argues that a self-signed certificate can be more secure is an idiot. In some circumstances it can be as secure, for example a point to point connection where the client knows the individual certificate (public key stored locally) and verifies it. Obviously google is not going to collect everyone's public certificate and load it into a key store, so in this case it is much less secure and sibject to a MITM attack.
People who actually understand security know that a false sense of security (i.e. any self signed cert) is a bad move and results in lower security since silly people who don't understand what they are doing think they are secure when they aren't.
Agree though of course self-signed certificates do have valid uses when known and validated by the connecting client, which is obviously not the case here
It wouldn't have been such a problem if they'd kept calling things Linksys, and not put the Cisco Systems logo all over everything. Then releasing all the Linksys kit as Cisco SMB - that was just crazy.
Nobody can fake a tape - except the Met Police who can play back their recorded hum in a soundproof room. Of course the would nevertamper with evidence. Would they?
That's dumb, the iPhone is MADE in China, it's also SOLD in China. There's no such export restriction and no such law (just think how dumb what you said is, in effect a product made in China can't be inside China... the mind boggles).
The rule is an Apple arbitrary sale limit rule. The article mentions Apple uses police officers to enforce it because they've had trouble in the past with people buying too many for unauthorized export. As if they get to tazer customers based on some EULA or something!
ALL SHE WANTED TO DO WAS BUY A LOT OF IPHONES AT FULL PRICE! (BTW they're the same price in China).
Right now I'm going to go to an Apple store and diss the products in front of other customers, complain they're overpriced, underpowered, not as good as the Android ones, maybe bring my Android quad core tablet and do visual compares. Until they ask me to leave. Then I'm not going to leave, I'm going to kick up one hell of a stink. Maybe do a bit of shouting about how they tazered a woman in an Apple store. f*** Apple. Really f*** em, corporate scum.
I'm sure the police are checking that their tasers are charged at this very moment...
I believe in Asia (or at least Korea), it's 119, so even those two aren't consistent internationally.
One argument for 112 is that it's easier to quickly dial if you're having an emergency moment and your finger-mobility is limited.
An argument against would be that it's easier to dial by accident.
I believe that 911/119 were chosen partially because those were the farthest spaced digits, to prevent accidental dialling.
I once had a co-worker who had a very simple phone number. Something like 555-545-4544 (or had only 2-3 unique digits).
He amused us once by playing back a message that some random young child had left on his voicemail over the weekend, presumably after mashing keys on the phone. The interesting part was that it wasn't the first such voicemail he had, but it was generally from different random children.
So 112 may be easier to dial in an emergency, but it's also likely to have a higher number of mis-dials or 3-year-olds that just picked up a phone and mashed part of the number-pad.
The 911 goes back to the dial telephone days, when numbers could be dialled by line clicks. Nine is very unlikely to be mis-dialled, but took longer (9 or 10 pulses to send), and 1 was quick, so 911 was a good compromise. In the UK 999 would almost never be dialled by line noise but took longer.
GSM already standardizes on 112 (even in North America - obviously you can also dial your local emergency number too, so 911 works here), and I don't believe the fat fingering issue you raise has been a problem at all.
Indeed, misdialing is only a minor problem with the UK 999
While we really don't use 112- as a prefix in the US, I could see how someone might use 911- as a prefix elsewhere.
This is exactly how the arguments will break down. Someone will say something like "you provide 911 in Europe because everyone knows that's the emergency number, but we don't need to provide 112 for the same reason" and nothing can be agreed. GP's idea that both provide both is much better, that way it is neutral and there can be no harm in America routing 112 to the emergency services.
Like watching the Quartlow brothers add 10W30 when you said 30HD. You point it out, and they say "Is equeevalent.'
--
I spam you. You spam me. We're a dysfunctional family.
More like your car comes back from a service with adverts all over it. You complain and they say "don't try to infringe my freedom of speech". Then you notice that the cost of the adverts has been added to your service bill. They say "it is proper that recipients 'bear some cost' of unsolicited adverts".
Put another way, it's as if mindless users followed Google Map directions to Arizona, instead of Arizona City, and ended up in the middle of Tonto National Forest, and issued a warning that Google Maps are inaccurate. Well, duh, how about suggesting to zoom in instead, so as to make sure you're not heading in the middle of nowhere?
According to TFA this a case of the city being mislocated, and is more akin to people asking for directions to Arizona City and instead being sent to Tonto National Forest.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I should add that there is a big difference between the Hobbit cinema HFR and HD displays that I have seen. I don't know whether this is due to compression of fast moving artefacts or physical persistence in the monitors but it is clearly very different.
people who complain about higher framerates never seem to have a justification other than 'it's not what I'm used to'. What about the 48fps made it suck? Please avoid using 'audiophile-like' subjective/emotional terms.
I ended up liking it by the end of the film, but the "in your face" realism was quite a shock at first. I went into it thinking that there would not be much difference but movements seem much more abrupt and real, and facial expressions seem more lifelike. I put this down to seeing every micro-expression, each twitch of the eye or slight tremble on a smile. I can see that some people wouldn't like it; probably a "Cal Lightman" would get sick of seeing the expression of fear in seeing an Orc was really hiding an "oh no this is the twenty-third take and I'm getting hungry".
If this is correct it is the second time an organism has wiped out most existing life forms The Great Oxygenation Event is thought to have killed most existing forms of life - then single-celled organisms. It makes you wonder, could it happen again - a bacteria completely changing Earth's chemistry in a way that's incompatible with most existing life forms?
Possible, yes, but in that case the advantage of using a CA is gone and I get at least the same level of security due to self-signing and verifying. Also since you suggest to sign it myselft to gain this security, you agree that this self-signing adds to safety (although you disguise your consent by rephrasing it from "self-signing" to "double-signing yourself")
I think you are losing track of what I asserted, that it is ridiculous to say that self signed certificates are more secure than CA signed, as you can do anything you can with a self-signed certificate with a CA signed one.
Anyone who argues that a self-signed certificate can be more secure is an idiot. In some circumstances it can be as secure, for example a point to point connection where the client knows the individual certificate (public key stored locally) and verifies it. Obviously google is not going to collect everyone's public certificate and load it into a key store, so in this case it is much less secure and sibject to a MITM attack.
If I rely on CAs and an attacker gets a certificate signed for my domain, couldn't he use it for a MITM-attack? How could he do that if I have my self signed certificate and do not give any credibility to CAs?
There is nothing to prevent you from manually checking a CA signed certificate against a known key, or even double-signing it yourself and ensuring that it validates against your own signing certificate
I would argue and better qualified people than I would agree, that self signed certs are actually more secure for uses like this.
You may argue, and more qualified than you may argue, but that doesn't mean they are qualified.
Anyone who argues that a self-signed certificate can be more secure is an idiot. In some circumstances it can be as secure, for example a point to point connection where the client knows the individual certificate (public key stored locally) and verifies it. Obviously google is not going to collect everyone's public certificate and load it into a key store, so in this case it is much less secure and sibject to a MITM attack.
People who actually understand security know that a false sense of security (i.e. any self signed cert) is a bad move and results in lower security since silly people who don't understand what they are doing think they are secure when they aren't.
Agree though of course self-signed certificates do have valid uses when known and validated by the connecting client, which is obviously not the case here
It's about gmail users [some of which ARE spammers] being able to send email to NON-gmail addresses.
Care to explain how? As far as I can see its about gmail users downloading received emails from another system into gmail for viewing/archiving etc.
A cert from BigNameInternetCompany costs next to nothing (although it might just be worth that much as well).
Or even absolutely nothing (though I cannot verify whether these are accepted by gmail)
It wouldn't have been such a problem if they'd kept calling things Linksys, and not put the Cisco Systems logo all over everything. Then releasing all the Linksys kit as Cisco SMB - that was just crazy.
A route to disaster?
and RIP to the Linksys brand.
It wouldn't be that hard to write a script that would randomly swap your words with ones from a thesaurus run through Berkeley's FrameNet.
nevertheless conjecture it prevail comprehensible?
(but would it be understandable?)
Suicide mission eh! Is this part of the NASA outreach to Muslims?
Wow, any recording huh? What about devices running on batteries? What about microphones that have 50/60 hz notch filters (for reducing the hum).
Duh.
I would think that most equipment with exception of real top end equipment or something running in a Faraday cage would have some measurable hum
Nobody can fake a tape - except the Met Police who can play back their recorded hum in a soundproof room. Of course the would never tamper with evidence. Would they?
That's dumb, the iPhone is MADE in China, it's also SOLD in China. There's no such export restriction and no such law (just think how dumb what you said is, in effect a product made in China can't be inside China... the mind boggles).
The rule is an Apple arbitrary sale limit rule. The article mentions Apple uses police officers to enforce it because they've had trouble in the past with people buying too many for unauthorized export. As if they get to tazer customers based on some EULA or something!
ALL SHE WANTED TO DO WAS BUY A LOT OF IPHONES AT FULL PRICE! (BTW they're the same price in China).
Right now I'm going to go to an Apple store and diss the products in front of other customers, complain they're overpriced, underpowered, not as good as the Android ones, maybe bring my Android quad core tablet and do visual compares. Until they ask me to leave. Then I'm not going to leave, I'm going to kick up one hell of a stink. Maybe do a bit of shouting about how they tazered a woman in an Apple store. f*** Apple. Really f*** em, corporate scum.
I'm sure the police are checking that their tasers are charged at this very moment...
A universal number that everyone must use .... its got to be 666
and go for 9112
I believe in Asia (or at least Korea), it's 119, so even those two aren't consistent internationally.
One argument for 112 is that it's easier to quickly dial if you're having an emergency moment and your finger-mobility is limited. An argument against would be that it's easier to dial by accident. I believe that 911/119 were chosen partially because those were the farthest spaced digits, to prevent accidental dialling.
I once had a co-worker who had a very simple phone number. Something like 555-545-4544 (or had only 2-3 unique digits). He amused us once by playing back a message that some random young child had left on his voicemail over the weekend, presumably after mashing keys on the phone. The interesting part was that it wasn't the first such voicemail he had, but it was generally from different random children.
So 112 may be easier to dial in an emergency, but it's also likely to have a higher number of mis-dials or 3-year-olds that just picked up a phone and mashed part of the number-pad.
The 911 goes back to the dial telephone days, when numbers could be dialled by line clicks. Nine is very unlikely to be mis-dialled, but took longer (9 or 10 pulses to send), and 1 was quick, so 911 was a good compromise. In the UK 999 would almost never be dialled by line noise but took longer.
GSM already standardizes on 112 (even in North America - obviously you can also dial your local emergency number too, so 911 works here), and I don't believe the fat fingering issue you raise has been a problem at all.
Indeed, misdialing is only a minor problem with the UK 999
While we really don't use 112- as a prefix in the US, I could see how someone might use 911- as a prefix elsewhere.
This is exactly how the arguments will break down. Someone will say something like "you provide 911 in Europe because everyone knows that's the emergency number, but we don't need to provide 112 for the same reason" and nothing can be agreed. GP's idea that both provide both is much better, that way it is neutral and there can be no harm in America routing 112 to the emergency services.
He could be Australia's answer to Bill Clinton
They have been bought off by the RIAA
Like watching the Quartlow brothers add 10W30 when you said 30HD. You point it out, and they say "Is equeevalent.'
--
I spam you. You spam me. We're a dysfunctional family.
More like your car comes back from a service with adverts all over it. You complain and they say "don't try to infringe my freedom of speech". Then you notice that the cost of the adverts has been added to your service bill. They say "it is proper that recipients 'bear some cost' of unsolicited adverts".
So if I went for "unlimited storage", would In be subject to infinite tax?
Put another way, it's as if mindless users followed Google Map directions to Arizona, instead of Arizona City, and ended up in the middle of Tonto National Forest, and issued a warning that Google Maps are inaccurate. Well, duh, how about suggesting to zoom in instead, so as to make sure you're not heading in the middle of nowhere?
According to TFA this a case of the city being mislocated, and is more akin to people asking for directions to Arizona City and instead being sent to Tonto National Forest.