you're [sic] traffic's still encrypted and secure from eavesdropping
Except from the party that did the MITM attack, which is most often the party that you want to prevent watching your traffic, you know, the one that is actually interested in sniffing your traffic..
Self-certified certificates are worse than plain unencrypted traffic because of psychological reasons, not because of technical reasons.
Your ISP can easily and automatically intercept self-signed certificates and present their own certificate, which you will gladly accept. Now you think that you are less secure than a verified certificate but still "somewhat secure". Technically, you are however protected as much as plain unencrypted HTTP.
Now, this is where humans fail. Because you still think you are "somewhat safe", you will take higher risks, write things that you would normally not write, click on links that you perhaps wouldn't click on over a plain non-encrypted page. The famous false sense of security, which actually does nothing except making you feel good.
Cryptographically safe, yes, but that's just one of the issues. Another issue is that there has to be a way keep your choice secret for *everyone*, even to lie about who you vote. Otherwise someone can force you to vote for one party, either by paying you money or by threatening to do bad things to you (lose your job, membership in a club, shoot you, whatever).
If you can vote from any computer, your employer could threaten you to make you vote from the office computer, and watch you do it. Cryptographically safe doesn't help if your computer has spyware as well.
Heh, I was just going to write this, but you beat me to it. Writing this on my X40 here. I have 7 hours of batterytime if I stretch it (no wifi, just coding and playing simple games).
Well, seems like your projects are aimed more for the 12-year old kids than this. The project they're talking about in the article is obviously not meant for people who don't really know what a MCU is, and I doubt that anyone would mistake it as such.
And it's there for anyone to take, or you can pay someone for the time it takes to dig up the raw materials and assemble them and ship them to you. It takes any computer at most a couple of seconds to gather the raw material and assemble and transport software to you, so no matter how little you charge, it's likely someone can do it for less.
You could try to make as many people as possible use and come to rely on your software, and then sell your services for customizing and supporting the software.
This is of course only useful if you absolutely need to sell software to individuals. A vast amount of software is written in-house, where you don't have to think about these issues.
How can an invalid MAC address brick the hardware? Lesson one is to check user input, no matter if it's strings in an URL or user-written data in NVRAM.
It is therefor logical to charge a fee for reproduction in order to repay the debt that development incurred.
There are other ways to recap the invested resources than to charge for each single copy, which are more direct. Charge for your time, that's what costs. Charging for each copy is flawed, due to the reasons I wrote in my first post. It might work in theory, but since anyone can undercut your production cost, and controlling this is impossible except for reading everyone's private communication, it is a very risky thing to base ones business on.
I'd like to know this as well. If I find one, I might consider switching, because ALSA is one of the most horrible components in most linux distributions today. I'd really love to see an alternative.
As for Ubuntu, that required millions of dollars to start. I don't think "donations from billionaire entrepreneurs" is going to be a successful MO for most companies.
A lot of companies require startup-capital. In this case, the founder had access to the money, so he didn't have to find investors like you normally do. Normal people would go to the bank or some investment company.
Whenever you pay more than the distribution cost for a piece of software, it is overpriced. Zeros and ones does not cost anything to produce, more than the duplication and transfer cost.
No, you use it because it writes assembly faster than you, 100% of the time. Ever since the first compilers came out, people have been claiming that it makes faster code without having any clue, and without backing it up.
How on earth will this make any more money to them? Do you think that the lawyers that will handle the closure of the company will care a single bit about releasing a patch? Do you think the programmers that has not been payed for 3 months will care to help out the company one more time? I'm sorry, but you seem to live in some strange universe. Unless there's a signed contract between you and the company, there's a very small chance that they will do anything at all just for goodwill, when they are already in debt and shutting down.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny how you say you are "speculating" but then use the word "usually". Maybe you meant to say "probably"?
The folks at Airbus are just dodging blame
Airbus said nothing, it's the airline who is trying to dodge blame here.
your telescope would either evaporate or freeze almost immediately
How about just trying to read the article, at least if you are going to pretend know something.
you're [sic] traffic's still encrypted and secure from eavesdropping
Except from the party that did the MITM attack, which is most often the party that you want to prevent watching your traffic, you know, the one that is actually interested in sniffing your traffic..
Except you're still a loser for posting anonymously.
Self-certified certificates are worse than plain unencrypted traffic because of psychological reasons, not because of technical reasons.
Your ISP can easily and automatically intercept self-signed certificates and present their own certificate, which you will gladly accept. Now you think that you are less secure than a verified certificate but still "somewhat secure". Technically, you are however protected as much as plain unencrypted HTTP.
Now, this is where humans fail. Because you still think you are "somewhat safe", you will take higher risks, write things that you would normally not write, click on links that you perhaps wouldn't click on over a plain non-encrypted page. The famous false sense of security, which actually does nothing except making you feel good.
Cryptographically safe, yes, but that's just one of the issues. Another issue is that there has to be a way keep your choice secret for *everyone*, even to lie about who you vote. Otherwise someone can force you to vote for one party, either by paying you money or by threatening to do bad things to you (lose your job, membership in a club, shoot you, whatever).
If you can vote from any computer, your employer could threaten you to make you vote from the office computer, and watch you do it. Cryptographically safe doesn't help if your computer has spyware as well.
it's none of *my* business, I'm not an American citizen.
You will have to suffer the consequences of a maniac in the white house though...
The wikipedia article was wrong. I have now fixed it. It only had Box and Polygon, no circles or freehand selection.
It was 1000 GBP, which is 1800 USD.
Heh, I was just going to write this, but you beat me to it. Writing this on my X40 here. I have 7 hours of batterytime if I stretch it (no wifi, just coding and playing simple games).
Well, seems like your projects are aimed more for the 12-year old kids than this. The project they're talking about in the article is obviously not meant for people who don't really know what a MCU is, and I doubt that anyone would mistake it as such.
And it's there for anyone to take, or you can pay someone for the time it takes to dig up the raw materials and assemble them and ship them to you. It takes any computer at most a couple of seconds to gather the raw material and assemble and transport software to you, so no matter how little you charge, it's likely someone can do it for less.
You could try to make as many people as possible use and come to rely on your software, and then sell your services for customizing and supporting the software.
This is of course only useful if you absolutely need to sell software to individuals. A vast amount of software is written in-house, where you don't have to think about these issues.
This post was what to helpful and informative.
Good thing you set it straight again with a sentence that's both incomprehensible and contains a typo.
I bet it's not as painful as the alternatives you mentioned!
How can an invalid MAC address brick the hardware? Lesson one is to check user input, no matter if it's strings in an URL or user-written data in NVRAM.
It is therefor logical to charge a fee for reproduction in order to repay the debt that development incurred.
There are other ways to recap the invested resources than to charge for each single copy, which are more direct. Charge for your time, that's what costs. Charging for each copy is flawed, due to the reasons I wrote in my first post. It might work in theory, but since anyone can undercut your production cost, and controlling this is impossible except for reading everyone's private communication, it is a very risky thing to base ones business on.
Wait? What distribution isn't using ALSA?
I'd like to know this as well. If I find one, I might consider switching, because ALSA is one of the most horrible components in most linux distributions today. I'd really love to see an alternative.
As for Ubuntu, that required millions of dollars to start. I don't think "donations from billionaire entrepreneurs" is going to be a successful MO for most companies.
A lot of companies require startup-capital. In this case, the founder had access to the money, so he didn't have to find investors like you normally do. Normal people would go to the bank or some investment company.
Whenever you pay more than the distribution cost for a piece of software, it is overpriced. Zeros and ones does not cost anything to produce, more than the duplication and transfer cost.
This is interesting, where is this?
Most editors I've worked with does this, even CED on my Amiga. UltraEdit for Windows, vim for linux, etc.
No, you use it because it writes assembly faster than you, 100% of the time. Ever since the first compilers came out, people have been claiming that it makes faster code without having any clue, and without backing it up.
How on earth will this make any more money to them? Do you think that the lawyers that will handle the closure of the company will care a single bit about releasing a patch? Do you think the programmers that has not been payed for 3 months will care to help out the company one more time? I'm sorry, but you seem to live in some strange universe. Unless there's a signed contract between you and the company, there's a very small chance that they will do anything at all just for goodwill, when they are already in debt and shutting down.