I understand that. But in the BP disaster, the actual people that were responsible for precipitating the disaster now face criminal charges. How come, in these price fixing schemes, don't we ever see the actual perps get charged?
Researchers from a pair of German universities conducted a detailed analysis of thousands of Android apps and found that better than 15 percent of those apps had weak or bad SSL implementations.
I would have thought that an SSL implementation, complete with certificate chain validation would be provided by the OS, and that apps would use that. Only apps that had special requirements should have to implement SSL. Does anyone know if android does provide a TLS interface, and if so are the apps ignoring the platform service?
The issue is that different Android devices in different countries have a different set of root certificates installed. So some customers complain to the app provider that they can't talk to their servers. Invariably, the SSL platform cannot chain the server SSL cert to any installed root cert. The app developers then provide an update to work around this using self signed certs or other workarounds.
Dropbox doesn't have any such incentive for users, and they're free to download from.
Minor nit. Are you suggesting that Megaupload requires downloaders to pay? That's false.
It is true, however, that it is slow/inconvenient for people to download from Megaupload for free.
Agree in general with your distinction between the business models of Dropbox and Megaupload/Rapidshare/et. al.
Finally, if Dropbox is in trouble, then so is Google (via Google Docs).
All that remains is for the computer to become the final arbiter. Not being able or allowed to question or even review the automated data is precisely how that will come about.
It's already happened. Here in Seattle, there's no way to dispute a red light camera infraction.
Why don't HDMI cables have UL-like standards such that they can be treated like commodity items?
And, perhaps I'm over-generalizing, why does our government/society encourage the consumption of imaginary assets (in this case, "better" quality HDMI cables)? It seems like "those in charge" think that the solution to our recession is to spend our way out of it, regardless of the efficacy of what we actually purchase (e.g., bottled water). It seems like "they" would rather have us work harder to maintain a neutral personal cash flow rather than to work the same amount, get ahead, and pay down our debt.
Instead of manufacturing real goods, we manufacture imaginary goods.
I live in a two party state (WA). Does anyone know of an easy way for my phone to play a pre-recorded message saying that the phone coversation might be recorded for "phone quality purposes" and that the caller consents to this? just like when i call any customer support number? I would love to have the ability to record (legally) the outrageous conversations that I've engaged in with various members of the business community.
No. What people end up accepting in the States is their business, but the EU has
a number of data
protection principles (see section 2.2). Veiled third party
advertising bugs don't follow those principles.
Agreed. I would say that similar concerns exist for allowing third party companies in other countries do x-ray analysis or tax returns on behalf of one's citizens. There may be business ramifications for breach of privacy but very little civil/criminal ramifications.
Well, the important question to ask Diebold engineers is whether their use case scenarios ever exposed the Jet DB to concurrent access. And if so, whether they took mitigating steps to handle that known issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that. But in the BP disaster, the actual people that were responsible for precipitating the disaster now face criminal charges. How come, in these price fixing schemes, don't we ever see the actual perps get charged?
How come the people involved in the criminal activity don't go to jail?
All I can say is good riddance.
The strongest societies (by a number of objective measures) are the ones that have a healthy respect for the elderly and their past contributions.
The article says:
Researchers from a pair of German universities conducted a detailed analysis of thousands of Android apps and found that better than 15 percent of those apps had weak or bad SSL implementations.
I would have thought that an SSL implementation, complete with certificate chain validation would be provided by the OS, and that apps would use that. Only apps that had special requirements should have to implement SSL. Does anyone know if android does provide a TLS interface, and if so are the apps ignoring the platform service?
The issue is that different Android devices in different countries have a different set of root certificates installed. So some customers complain to the app provider that they can't talk to their servers. Invariably, the SSL platform cannot chain the server SSL cert to any installed root cert. The app developers then provide an update to work around this using self signed certs or other workarounds.
What's even funnier is to allow all the people marked as "spammers" to see each other's comments as well. We called this the Secret Garden.
Not when iPhone revenues exceed ALL of Microsoft's revenues...in a market that Microsoft practically invented (smartphones).
Why not? Would any private sector business continue to do business with a partner that was suing it?
This is the sort of grandiose bullshit that is excreted out of the bowels of Microsoft.
Dropbox doesn't have any such incentive for users, and they're free to download from.
Minor nit. Are you suggesting that Megaupload requires downloaders to pay? That's false. It is true, however, that it is slow/inconvenient for people to download from Megaupload for free. Agree in general with your distinction between the business models of Dropbox and Megaupload/Rapidshare/et. al. Finally, if Dropbox is in trouble, then so is Google (via Google Docs).
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/officers-punished-for-supporting-eased-drug-laws.html?ref=us
All that remains is for the computer to become the final arbiter. Not being able or allowed to question or even review the automated data is precisely how that will come about.
It's already happened. Here in Seattle, there's no way to dispute a red light camera infraction.
Why don't HDMI cables have UL-like standards such that they can be treated like commodity items? And, perhaps I'm over-generalizing, why does our government/society encourage the consumption of imaginary assets (in this case, "better" quality HDMI cables)? It seems like "those in charge" think that the solution to our recession is to spend our way out of it, regardless of the efficacy of what we actually purchase (e.g., bottled water). It seems like "they" would rather have us work harder to maintain a neutral personal cash flow rather than to work the same amount, get ahead, and pay down our debt. Instead of manufacturing real goods, we manufacture imaginary goods.
ok, my bad then...i only read the most recent system requirements and they haven't changed since v1.
Unfortunately, it still has the restriction that you cannot install it on Windows Server 2008 (the OS I'm using on my development laptop).
I live in a two party state (WA). Does anyone know of an easy way for my phone to play a pre-recorded message saying that the phone coversation might be recorded for "phone quality purposes" and that the caller consents to this? just like when i call any customer support number? I would love to have the ability to record (legally) the outrageous conversations that I've engaged in with various members of the business community.
Just buy a prepaid cell phone with cash and top up the minutes with cash. No ID required.
No. What people end up accepting in the States is their business, but the EU has a number of data protection principles (see section 2.2). Veiled third party advertising bugs don't follow those principles.
Agreed. I would say that similar concerns exist for allowing third party companies in other countries do x-ray analysis or tax returns on behalf of one's citizens. There may be business ramifications for breach of privacy but very little civil/criminal ramifications.
I am not affiliated with spamex but I am a happy customer.
Well, the important question to ask Diebold engineers is whether their use case scenarios ever exposed the Jet DB to concurrent access. And if so, whether they took mitigating steps to handle that known issue.