"The key negotiation process needs to allow for the possibility of radio interference, so it permits the access point to re-send the message that is step three of the handshake. If an attacker sends a copy of this message, the client device will be tricked into reverting back to the original encryption key and initialization vector used at the start of the session. The client's next transmissions will have been encrypted with the same key as earlier transmissions, even though that key was only meant for a single use. That allows for a key reuse attack, which doesn't directly expose the underlying encryption key but does make it relatively easy to decrypt the data that was encrypted, especially if something is known about the structure of the messages that were both encrypted with the same key. IP packet headers, in turn, provide exactly that."
So Microsoft "patched" this by not properly implementing the phase 3 handshake re-transmit as it's required in spec of 802.11i from the start.
Yes, if the phase 3 handshake re-transmit required by the specification inherently enables a key reuse attack, then the flaw is not in the implementation, but the specification itself, and security would dictate that one refuse to enable that portion of the specification. Losing the ability to initialize a connection in a high RFI environment, which most installations attempt to avoid and mitigate, is an inconvenience. Having your traffic snooped is quite a bit more of an issue.
PBS is funded by forced, if indirect, taxes. Does PBS qualify as "state run media"? The answer is no. Because despite DJT's and TM's opinions concerning the news, politicians have almost no control over what those institutions publish - baying "state secrets" doesn't get one very far.
While taken alone the interview might be frivolous when considered in combination with the fact that he went 11+ years without making any copyright claims over Pepe whatsoever including many instances of people making money off the property that he was aware of means that it could easily be considered binding/
Nope. Petrella v. MGM was quite clear that latches does not apply within the statute of limitations (3 years). Thank you for playing "Doh! An IP layer caught my gross misstatement concerning the law!"
They're all bought and paid by the ruling elite. But if you're giving me the choice between Hilary's "neo-liberalism" (e.g. all the same economic policies as the Right wing but Gays & Abortions are OK) and Trump at least _saying_ he's going to do something material to help the working class folks are going to pick Trump every time. And why shouldn't they? Especially when Trump at least gives lip service against violence?
Yes, because between the people telling you that you must adapt even if it is painful and the people outright laying to you and telling you that you need not change a thing, continually voting for the latter is going to... make you far worse off and demonstrate to the world that you are a rube.
Fool you once, shame on Trump. Fool you twice, shame on you.
Infrastructure upgrades are different if you are talking the bond market support or major investment, which isn't what NAFTA is.
Because power, water supply, and wastewater systems supporting factories are not infrastructure. Because the factories manufacturing those goods are not themselves infrastructure. Because the transportation systems involved in import and export are not infrastructure.
We are talking short term markets for selling commodities and finished goods that cross the border with little to no import duties.
We're talking about myopic anonymous cowards with little business experience extolling things that simply are not true.
Think physicians selecting which insurance providers to accept as a result of tumultuous politics every 2 to 4 years.
Think physicians building hospitals and purchasing diagnostic equipment.
In a more ideal world, a long term agreement would keep everyone happy and focused on providing goods and services rather than supply chain and back office support, but the reality is that with finite resources, every country needs to be able to adjust mid-course and maintain competition that benefits the total economy.
"Some jobs are lost due to imports, but others are created, and consumers benefit significantly from the falling prices and often improved quality of goods created by import competition. A 2014 PIIE study of NAFTAâ(TM)s effects found that about 15,000 jobs on net are lost each year due to the pactâ"but that for each of those jobs lost, the economy gains roughly $450,000 in the form of higher productivity and lower consumer prices."
The Kodi project has distributed its software to users in other countries. What is "doing business"?
Shame on you, you cut short his sentence --"and/or apply for registration of the mark in that country."
Canada has moved to a hybrid first-to-file trademark registration system. Prior users of the mark may still demonstrate that they have priority, but they have to litigate priority in court. Many countries, like China, are hybrid first-to-file countries, and many others are pue first-to-file countries.
Register your trademark or else: "Whether your trademark is already the subject of a foreign registration, or whether an application for the mark has not yet been filed in any country, it would be prudent to be the first to file in Canada before the law permits others to file applications for your trademarks without having to claim use. While you could litigate later over who is entitled to priority for the mark, it would be far more cost effective to avoid this potential litigation by being the first to file."
Now, if you are talking about a billion dollars in damages, that sounds like the effects of AMD's loss of market share. So why isn't AMD getting any of the money?
Because AMD didn't sue Intel for violations of competition law in the reported action.
You act as if there can only be one suit against Intel for their behavior. But a governmental authority can file suit against Intel on behalf of itself as the soverign authority, a competitor can file suit against Intel on behalf of itself, and, on occasion, a citizen or group of citizens can file suit against Intel for their own injuries (not a European attorney, no idea whether they provide for consumer actions).
If Nazi websites are being taken down and their domains are being terminated, why do other terrorist organizations like Wikileaks get a double standard?
Because they don't actively adopt, encourage, and support a Nazi ideology? Or racist or religious hate in general? There's no double standard - one group actively goes way over any reasonable line, and the other at worst tolerates borderline postings by others -- if even that.
Seize their domain like you did to the Nazis.
Nobody seized a domain. DailyStormer was free to transfer their domain to registrar would take it. They simply failed to find a taker. Look up the whois record yourself.
let's point out that liberals demanded that Trump condemn white supremacy after the Charlottesville attacks
Damn people for expecting their political leadership to condemn domestic terrorism and groups that endorse it through bullshit like "rahowa."
Next time Muslims commit a terrorist attack, liberals need to condemn Islam. Eliminate these double standards.
Conservatives already do it. Liberals will not because, as they explain over, and over, and over again, you can no more blame Islam and Muslims for those attacks than you can blame Christianity and Southern Baptists. You need to be a bit more specific, like blaming Nazis and ISIS.
Pretty sure liberals have been blaming ISIS. So suck it.
NPR is not exactly an objective source when it comes to L v R, I guess you know.
No, I don't know. Perhaps you could provide systematic evidence, rather than an anecdote or two, to back that assertion.
The NPR opinion piece you referred to limits its description of left wing violence to those done by "groups", but compares against all RW violence, individual or group.
Talk about not being an objective "source," you need to check yourself. "In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says."
LW violence by individuals was not excluded from that figure. It was a division of a uniformly selected population.
It's always fun when someone runs in, days later, to reply to a comment with something so brief and nonsensical. It probably won't be read by anyone else, it probably won't be moderated up or down, and it's probably not going to convince the parent poster that he or she was wrong.
People keep saying that, but here we are in 2017 and BTC is trading at more than $4,000 USD.
My tiger-repelling cologne has also never failed to disappoint. That does not mean that it is actually tiger-repelling.
The GP stated that "there is nothing less real about Bitcoin than other fiat currency." I've identified a difference, in that nobody threatens actual force to require an entire population to transact in Bitcoin. Whether a small number of people are currently willing to purchase Bitcoin for some surprisingly large number of dollars does not change that. In fact, I have yet to attempt a purchase in which someone would only accept Bitcoin. It's a second- or third- tier payment option outside of the "Dark Web." It effectively does not exist for me.
I and essentially everyone I know must have dollars to pay Federal, state, and local taxes. That means that we all need dollars, and will transact in dollars, for a large portion of our economic needs. Bitcoin is merely a speculative investment. You'd be an idiot to sell it according to your apparent logic. That's the opposite of fiat currencies that are expected to operate as stable-valued mediums of exchange.
Supermarket industry is super competitive but also very fragile. I've seen chains disappear, stores go out of business from over-supply and lots of turn-over for the retail spaces made for them.
Antitrust law protects competitive markets, not existing competitors.
Philosophical debate on reality aside, there is nothing less real about Bitcoin than other fiat currency.
Men in suits, potentially with guns, can tax your income and/or transactions and require payment of those taxes in a fiat currency. Which means that at the end of the day that fiat currency is backed by the value of human labor and/or physical assets.
Bitcoin is backed only by demand for Bitcoin, and therefore can drop to absolute worthlessness on a whim, versus a complete collapse of governing authority.
There is a vast chasm of difference between a Secretary of State's emails, and those of a consulting graphics artist, a few lower level budget analysts, or even some engineers.
That's why I included Holdren. No answer to that one, eh?
Asking for someone's email, the budget for a simple calendar or graphic, or trying to fish for information doesn't meet that criteria.
Whew. For a second I thought that people could simply request thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails while serving as Sec. of State in an attempt to fish for information prior to an election. Good to know that they don't meet 3301s criteria.
Oh wait, they did, and a Federal judge even ordered the State Department to supply thousands of emails concerning disparate subjects in response to a single request. And again for John Holdren's emails.
You're simply wrong. "machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics" includes emails and budgets. "appropriate for preservation by that agency" includes emails and budgets (but possibly not slack channel contents, since they would be difficult to automatically archive). "other activities of the Government" extends to any government business.
Motherboard needs to appeal the denial within the agency. Obtain a final agency decision. File a FOIA suit with a judge. Watch agency lose if the requests are at all specific -- i.e., keyword searchable or associated with particlar identifiers such as an email address. It's been done before and it can be done again.
Crappy examples. Both of your examples have very restrictive immigration policies and in Japan the middle class doesn't feel the same sort of economic pressure from low wage immigrants, nor is it likely to in the near term.
As if that isn't precisely what Trump has planned for the US. I consider you to have conceded my point.
If we slow the immigration rate and retard population growth then prices for goods and services will rise. This will foster investment in automation and efficiency, which in turn will drive productivity (per capita) up. It's the shortest road to a world where we can actually provide for everyone and their basic needs.
You're daft. You want to decrease consumer demand to increase prices for goods and services, but also increase productivity and efficiency (which will decrease prices for goods and services), and in this high-automation, high-price environment you believe that everyone will be provided for at least at the level of basic needs. It's a macroeconomics "F," especially since the immigration controls are being driving by an anti-social-welfare, low tax orthodoxy. I mean, if there was a grade lower than "F," you'd have earned it.
Now what happens after you build a fortress wall (wasting tens of billions of dollars) and drop legal immigration to 50,000/yr? Oh yeah, a population drop! We're already at 0.7%/yr and falling, and we haven't even implemented Trump's immigration control dreams yet.
"Have you actually thought about the social and economic circumstances of depopulating midwestern cities and towns, or is that beyond your attention horizon, living in California as you are?"
And we (the United States) want to cap legal immigration at ~50,000/year, so good luck making that argument while avoiding a long slide into depopulation, as currently exists in Japan and Russia.
Yes, in the short term it causes some economic imbalances, but in the long term it's probably a good thing.
SOME economic imbalances? Have you actually thought about the social and economic circumstances of depopulating midwestern cities and towns, or is that beyond your attention horizon, living in California as you are? Ah yes, the reason why you favor "less people" is certainly apparent... you want less people where you are. As if people are going to stop migrating there due to a drop in birth rate.
Other people come to slashdot for other things. Accept it. Don't read and comment on postings that you're ostensibly not interested in.
Better one article about the subject that is vaguely related to tech...
Which this is...
than dozens of articles about the same damn thing like/r/politics
This is the only article on the disbanding of certain Presidential advisory councils that included a slew of technology leaders. Your wish has been granted twofold.
The only thing wrong here is many of these cases, is...that a few politicians are making the decisions rather than putting this to the vote of the people in those cities/states.
When is the last time that you voted on putting up or taking down any statue?
When the statues were put up it was only "few politicians are making the decisions rather than putting [it] to the vote of the people." Why raise the bar now?
Slashdot Mirror
"The key negotiation process needs to allow for the possibility of radio interference, so it permits the access point to re-send the message that is step three of the handshake. If an attacker sends a copy of this message, the client device will be tricked into reverting back to the original encryption key and initialization vector used at the start of the session. The client's next transmissions will have been encrypted with the same key as earlier transmissions, even though that key was only meant for a single use. That allows for a key reuse attack, which doesn't directly expose the underlying encryption key but does make it relatively easy to decrypt the data that was encrypted, especially if something is known about the structure of the messages that were both encrypted with the same key. IP packet headers, in turn, provide exactly that."
Yes, if the phase 3 handshake re-transmit required by the specification inherently enables a key reuse attack, then the flaw is not in the implementation, but the specification itself, and security would dictate that one refuse to enable that portion of the specification. Losing the ability to initialize a connection in a high RFI environment, which most installations attempt to avoid and mitigate, is an inconvenience. Having your traffic snooped is quite a bit more of an issue.
Because "run" also refers to editorial control?
PBS is funded by forced, if indirect, taxes. Does PBS qualify as "state run media"? The answer is no. Because despite DJT's and TM's opinions concerning the news, politicians have almost no control over what those institutions publish - baying "state secrets" doesn't get one very far.
Nope. Petrella v. MGM was quite clear that latches does not apply within the statute of limitations (3 years). Thank you for playing "Doh! An IP layer caught my gross misstatement concerning the law!"
You're attempting to twist a principle to extend it to a situation that the principle was never meant to cover: consequence-free speech.
Say horrible things, be ostracized. It's a principle that is valued as a cornerstone of society.
Yes, because between the people telling you that you must adapt even if it is painful and the people outright laying to you and telling you that you need not change a thing, continually voting for the latter is going to... make you far worse off and demonstrate to the world that you are a rube.
Fool you once, shame on Trump. Fool you twice, shame on you.
Because power, water supply, and wastewater systems supporting factories are not infrastructure. Because the factories manufacturing those goods are not themselves infrastructure. Because the transportation systems involved in import and export are not infrastructure.
We're talking about myopic anonymous cowards with little business experience extolling things that simply are not true.
Think physicians building hospitals and purchasing diagnostic equipment.
The total economy, you say?
"Some jobs are lost due to imports, but others are created, and consumers benefit significantly from the falling prices and often improved quality of goods created by import competition. A 2014 PIIE study of NAFTAâ(TM)s effects found that about 15,000 jobs on net are lost each year due to the pactâ"but that for each of those jobs lost, the economy gains roughly $450,000 in the form of higher productivity and lower consumer prices."
Per the quote, less.
Object code is not code, when you require it not to be in order to save face.
Shame on you, you cut short his sentence --"and/or apply for registration of the mark in that country."
Canada has moved to a hybrid first-to-file trademark registration system. Prior users of the mark may still demonstrate that they have priority, but they have to litigate priority in court. Many countries, like China, are hybrid first-to-file countries, and many others are pue first-to-file countries.
Register your trademark or else:
"Whether your trademark is already the subject of a foreign registration, or whether an application for the mark has not yet been filed in any country, it would be prudent to be the first to file in Canada before the law permits others to file applications for your trademarks without having to claim use. While you could litigate later over who is entitled to priority for the mark, it would be far more cost effective to avoid this potential litigation by being the first to file."
Because AMD didn't sue Intel for violations of competition law in the reported action.
You act as if there can only be one suit against Intel for their behavior. But a governmental authority can file suit against Intel on behalf of itself as the soverign authority, a competitor can file suit against Intel on behalf of itself, and, on occasion, a citizen or group of citizens can file suit against Intel for their own injuries (not a European attorney, no idea whether they provide for consumer actions).
Why not you?
Because they don't actively adopt, encourage, and support a Nazi ideology? Or racist or religious hate in general? There's no double standard - one group actively goes way over any reasonable line, and the other at worst tolerates borderline postings by others -- if even that.
Nobody seized a domain. DailyStormer was free to transfer their domain to registrar would take it. They simply failed to find a taker. Look up the whois record yourself.
Damn people for expecting their political leadership to condemn domestic terrorism and groups that endorse it through bullshit like "rahowa."
Conservatives already do it. Liberals will not because, as they explain over, and over, and over again, you can no more blame Islam and Muslims for those attacks than you can blame Christianity and Southern Baptists. You need to be a bit more specific, like blaming Nazis and ISIS.
Pretty sure liberals have been blaming ISIS. So suck it.
Well, they did that, so you're simply denying reality.
Let's get this straight -- well-armed and resourced police have no duty to do anything, but he does.
Nope. One pretty much has to have actually seen a felony, or assisted someone after the fact knowing that they'd committed a crime.
Apparently the risk of death even though you may be heavily armed and virtually immune from prosecution. Oh, wait, you meant a civilian. Lack of training, no qualified immunity, and the aforementioned being shot by first responders, methinks
Internet tough guy. Try not to select such an obvious meme.
No, I don't know. Perhaps you could provide systematic evidence, rather than an anecdote or two, to back that assertion.
The NPR opinion piece you referred to limits its description of left wing violence to those done by "groups", but compares against all RW violence, individual or group.
Talk about not being an objective "source," you need to check yourself. "In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says."
LW violence by individuals was not excluded from that figure. It was a division of a uniformly selected population.
It's always fun when someone runs in, days later, to reply to a comment with something so brief and nonsensical. It probably won't be read by anyone else, it probably won't be moderated up or down, and it's probably not going to convince the parent poster that he or she was wrong.
My tiger-repelling cologne has also never failed to disappoint. That does not mean that it is actually tiger-repelling.
The GP stated that "there is nothing less real about Bitcoin than other fiat currency." I've identified a difference, in that nobody threatens actual force to require an entire population to transact in Bitcoin. Whether a small number of people are currently willing to purchase Bitcoin for some surprisingly large number of dollars does not change that. In fact, I have yet to attempt a purchase in which someone would only accept Bitcoin. It's a second- or third- tier payment option outside of the "Dark Web." It effectively does not exist for me.
I and essentially everyone I know must have dollars to pay Federal, state, and local taxes. That means that we all need dollars, and will transact in dollars, for a large portion of our economic needs. Bitcoin is merely a speculative investment. You'd be an idiot to sell it according to your apparent logic. That's the opposite of fiat currencies that are expected to operate as stable-valued mediums of exchange.
Antitrust law protects competitive markets, not existing competitors.
Men in suits, potentially with guns, can tax your income and/or transactions and require payment of those taxes in a fiat currency. Which means that at the end of the day that fiat currency is backed by the value of human labor and/or physical assets.
Bitcoin is backed only by demand for Bitcoin, and therefore can drop to absolute worthlessness on a whim, versus a complete collapse of governing authority.
That's why I included Holdren. No answer to that one, eh?
Whew. For a second I thought that people could simply request thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails while serving as Sec. of State in an attempt to fish for information prior to an election. Good to know that they don't meet 3301s criteria.
Oh wait, they did, and a Federal judge even ordered the State Department to supply thousands of emails concerning disparate subjects in response to a single request. And again for John Holdren's emails.
You're simply wrong. "machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics" includes emails and budgets. "appropriate for preservation by that agency" includes emails and budgets (but possibly not slack channel contents, since they would be difficult to automatically archive). "other activities of the Government" extends to any government business.
Motherboard needs to appeal the denial within the agency. Obtain a final agency decision. File a FOIA suit with a judge. Watch agency lose if the requests are at all specific -- i.e., keyword searchable or associated with particlar identifiers such as an email address. It's been done before and it can be done again.
As if that isn't precisely what Trump has planned for the US. I consider you to have conceded my point.
You're daft. You want to decrease consumer demand to increase prices for goods and services, but also increase productivity and efficiency (which will decrease prices for goods and services), and in this high-automation, high-price environment you believe that everyone will be provided for at least at the level of basic needs. It's a macroeconomics "F," especially since the immigration controls are being driving by an anti-social-welfare, low tax orthodoxy. I mean, if there was a grade lower than "F," you'd have earned it.
Prove it. I already gave examples of Russia and Japan where that hasn't happened.
Way to ignore the argument, numbnuts. The US dropped below static replacement fertility in 1972. All population growth since then has been due to increasing lifespan (whoops, that's going away), and immigration.
Now what happens after you build a fortress wall (wasting tens of billions of dollars) and drop legal immigration to 50,000/yr? Oh yeah, a population drop! We're already at 0.7%/yr and falling, and we haven't even implemented Trump's immigration control dreams yet.
"Have you actually thought about the social and economic circumstances of depopulating midwestern cities and towns, or is that beyond your attention horizon, living in California as you are?"
Answer the question. Oh right, you can't.
And we (the United States) want to cap legal immigration at ~50,000/year, so good luck making that argument while avoiding a long slide into depopulation, as currently exists in Japan and Russia.
SOME economic imbalances? Have you actually thought about the social and economic circumstances of depopulating midwestern cities and towns, or is that beyond your attention horizon, living in California as you are? Ah yes, the reason why you favor "less people" is certainly apparent... you want less people where you are. As if people are going to stop migrating there due to a drop in birth rate.
Other people come to slashdot for other things. Accept it. Don't read and comment on postings that you're ostensibly not interested in.
Which this is...
This is the only article on the disbanding of certain Presidential advisory councils that included a slew of technology leaders. Your wish has been granted twofold.
When is the last time that you voted on putting up or taking down any statue?
When the statues were put up it was only "few politicians are making the decisions rather than putting [it] to the vote of the people." Why raise the bar now?