Anyways, requiring a GMO label is intended for nothing else than to stigmatize.
Translation: People are stupid and must not be allowed to make their own decisions.
is every bit as asinine as the California proposal a few years back to require cell phones have a radiation output level, which is retarded because cell phones emit all of zero Sieverts
So do Microwave ovens.
but some dumb fucks think it's a wonderful idea to have to put manufacturers in the position of making phones that emit less EM energy, and for no good reason whatsoever.
The only way to do that would be to allow the computer to override your decisions.
Does AEB override your decisions? What about ABS? Traction control? Power steering? Speed/Rev limiters? CTA? Cruise control?
If the electronics are able to take control over the car without your permission, you aren't really in control; you just have the illusion of control.
In the typical scenario where I get in my POS, drive to work and no electronic dumbass driver alert goes off my driving experience is none different.
The only difference is in the exceptional case where the dumbass alert goes off people don't end up in hospitals or morgues.
You are free to argue adding constraints is the same as "illusion of control" but I'm not sure how such statements are any more useful than arguing "free will" is an illusion.
At that point, you might as well just let the computer drive so you can kick back and check your email, send text messages to your friends, and make out in the back seat... or whatever.
I think *IF* this automation can be made to work reliably it would be great. It would give drivers more options than they have now. If they don't like driving or don't feel like driving they don't have to.
Where I disagree is the assertion manual driving will be necessarily denied because it is deemed to be unsafe. If the technology exists for vehicles to drive themselves at or better than human capability certainly the technology would also exist to assist drivers who decide they want to drive themselves.
The screams of the 30,000 people that die each year in cars should be enough to silence this argument as we move toward autonomous cars. Its time to remove human ego from transportation. We may live to see a day where self-drive is illegal and i cant wait.
Why assume self driving would always carry the same risk going forward? In a future where electronics can drive reliably what prevents the same electronics from rendering self driving safe?
Two things I dislike are all of these blurry effects and going overboard with bloom. In my view it isn't "cinematic" and doesn't make scenes look better. It is just plain annoying.
Fuck Microsoft for caving and apologizing. Fuck the media for continuing to amplify the voices of a minority who always take offense to everything in a never ending pursuit of fostering controversy and whoring attention for hits and views.
Just because you object to something doesn't grant you the right to ruin it for others who disagree with you.
Even after Snowden expose how the American government has been eavesdropping on us, Obama came out accusing Snowden as a traitor, and vowing to continue his Saddam Hussein style of wiping his ass with our Constitution and Bill of Right
"This guys a bad guy and you know thereâ(TM)s still a thing called execution."
"You know, spies in the old days used to be executed"
A few days ago, I flipped on an old 3.1 machine. It started making all kinds of racket, so I thought there was a problem with the cooling fan. To my surprise, it was in the middle of installing Windows 10! It didn't even have a network connection. I called Microsoft, and they said the 10 upgrade would not install on a 3.1 machine. Liars!
See how easy that is? I'd like some evidence, thanks, which no one seems to be able to provide. As far as I can tell, the mystical belief that windows 10 installs itself without any user interaction is 100% pure bullshit.
The issue of whether it happens by itself or happens by accident is a red herring to distract from evil engineering that went into designing an experience intentionally designed to result in accidents.
Imagine a scenario where Microsoft cars randomly remapped foot pedals and direction of steering wheel each time they are driven. It wouldn't just be a few outliers anymore with unfounded complaints of cars going the opposite direction or suddenly stopping instead of going.
The response would not be... oh I don't believe you... it would be felony charges and suing the vendor into oblivion for deliberately creating an unsafe product.
It is obvious to me by construction of UX Microsoft specifically intends for these "accidents" to happen. It does not matter one bit to me whether the user is at fault or recalls something that didn't actually occur.
At this point I've resigned to add MS to my kill file and move on. If they have this much contempt and disregard for their customers now... Just imagine what they are going to be like when they really start to lose market share. Better abandon ship now while the abandoning is good.
Microsoft is not stupid. They know all about Interface design and human factors. What they are doing is like an infomercial or PR department spewing misleading language while technically may be true is intentionally knowingly designed to leverage ignorance or trick people who are not lawyers into making implicit assumptions. Whether machines are upgrading themselves or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact people are being fucked over by a deliberate and conscious action on the part of Microsoft.
How can anyone expect integrity from a corporation who intentionally installs and enables backdoors access by default allowing Microsoft to read any file or setting they feel like from your computer without your knowledge or consent?
That has jack shit to do with it being DOCSIS. As long as the node is not oversubscribed, and the CMTS is not oversubscribed, you can all still get full speeds all day long.
At 1gbit per modem how many people do you think can actually pull that rate at the same time on a node? 2? 3? 4? How many on the average node? 200? 400?
And the fiber to the home that Google (and Verizon, etc.) are selling is NOT a dedicated fiber pair going all the way back to the provider's core. It also uses
Google is doing GPON if I remember correctly which means passive optics and no contested access.
a "local loop" type of topology which is shared among you and your neighbors, and can suffer the exact same oversubscription issues if the provider doesn't keep the equipment upgraded to meet demand.
Comcast's coax offers a max frequency of 1ghz. Light pipes have a max frequency in the hundreds of thz range.
I don't buy arguments secure boot loaders make systems appreciably any safer. Physical access is game over no matter what. Successful remote root exploit is also game over in terms of at least exfiltration of data even if attack can be rendered non-persistent after reboot it can also be accomplished with protected media.
The real purpose and biggest winners from secure boot loaders are vendors who use them to prevent people from modifying the computers they purchased.
I don't buy any excuse supporting the current system of planet scale trust anchors where compromise of a single private key stands to compromise millions or billions of systems world wide. This is both standard operating procedure across the industry and also happens to be perfectly inexcusably insane.
We are abusing PKI in ways that promote compromise and unnecessarily endanger users. There simply is no reason for this. All that needs to be done is for global trust to be limited for the purposes of service discovery and bootstrapping to off-ramp more localized sources of trust.
If you do this damage associated with key compromise is significantly limited and would be a useless thing to request in any court.
I look at third party doctrine, patriot act sec 215 and real world examples of Operator receiving NSL+gag order for private key even though they offered to comply with request to write code to get data without compromising others.
So yes I don't agree with DOJ threats nor the patriot act, third party doctrine, warrantless bulk data collection...etc..etc. I don't believe Apple should be forced to hand over private keys nor bless system images they don't want to bless no matter what. It isn't proportional and compelled speech is not consistent with a free society.
Having said all that what we're doing today is wrong and dangerous. In many ways the government requests are a wakeup call highlighting implementation and structural failures... Technical people involved and the industry as a whole needs to quit whining and bitching about government requests and spend more time thinking about how they fucked up.
The decisions made in this case could have immense negative effects in many other areas as well. First they're after Apple's source code repository and signature key and next they'll be serving backdoors or start decrypting computers using Windows Update. That is unarguably a real possibility now.
Your blowing this way out of proportion. It isn't as if Microsoft already has a backdoor that allows their engineers to access any data on your system regardless of FDE without your knowledge.
I love how they try to insist this is new and somehow unique or different from anything that has gone on for thousands of years since language was nothing more than a series of grunts.
People always had the capability to speak or write in code or riddles to conceal thoughts from others. Doing the same thing with (insert modern tool here) may well provide additional capabilities or conveniences not before possible but is not a new or foreign concept. The implications are no different.
Regardless of technology used to protect stored thoughts or communication between trusted individual there is always a commons where those with evil aims must operate to find buyers or sellers for illicit goods and services, recruit and gather materials..etc. Given requirements for search under the 4th something other than private communications and stored data must serve as primary venue and vehicle by which investigations are supposed to start.
Okay, Microsoft has been injecting all sorts of stuff in their interest a the expense of their customers since Windows XP (WGA). We've had more "phone home" since WGA, and progressively more with each release. Windows 10 is the result of prodding a broom handle up our butts progressively deeper and seeing how deep it goes before we say "stop". The "telemetry" (really?!?) data collection, which MS admits you cannot turn off, and now ads in IE?
It just isn't data collection Microsoft has a full blown BACKDOOR it can deploy at will to exfiltrate ANYTHING it wants from a Windows 10 users system by DEFAULT without their CONSENT or KNOWLEDGE.
The most egregious aspect of this in my view is actually the domain check. It is one thing to hide political messages in a security update. I don't consider this to be defensible behavior.
To me the domain check signals Microsoft knows full well what they are doing is wrong so they installed a little check to limit outrage and damage from customers who pay them the most money. It reflects a willfully deliberate calculation of what they believe they can get away with.
Unless you are a gamer or have specific hardware (medical mainly), nobody needs MS Windows
Thank goodness cost of developing multi-platform games continues to fall as major game engines support more platforms out of the box and Vulkan inevitably overtakes dx12.
A trojan horse is something that claims to be something that it isn't.
Well it claims to be a security update and it isn't.
Everything is very up front about what it is so long as you actually read what it is. It may be a bit underhanded, but it most certainly isn't a trojan horse.
In other words you could have always pried upon the horse to make sure it wasn't filled with soldiers and incendiary devices.
The customer isn't accessing the server from the Internet.
What makes you say that?
The customer has an Internet IP and is using it to communicate with another private Internet network.
Is there some kind of distance requirement how many networks you have to transition before it is considered the Internet? If so can you point me to that definition?
The server and the customer are on the same WAN.
The customers network is a LAN which interconnects with Comcast's network just like every other node on the Internet interconnects with each other... One gigantic WAN.
Right. But the customer network isn't the Internet either. Dumbass.
The Internet is nothing more aggregate of all networks in the global federation.
The customer network is *part* of the Internet just the same as AS15169 is *part* of the Internet.
To get to the Internet, the customer goes to Comcast's network, which forwards them to the Internet
Comcast's network is part of the Internet. The customers network is part of the Internet. Anything Comcast forwards packets to is part of the Internet. Every public or private network in the federation is part of the Internet.
If I connect to my neighbor down the street using their public IP who also happen to have Comcast I am using the Internet to communicate with another peer on the Internet. I'm part of the Internet, Comcast is part of the Internet, My neighbor is part of the Internet.
To get to this service, the customer goes to Comcast's network, which forwards them to a different server on Comcast's network. It doesn't forward them to the Internet because the server that streams this stuff isn't on the Internet.
Comcast's network is part of the Internet. The users network is part of the Internet. When data leaves customers network is it traveling over the Internet. When data leaves Comcast network and arrives at customers network it is traveling over the Internet. At no time is the Internet not involved.
I think the FTC just hit a jackpot. For sure lots of ripe low hanging fruit to be plucked in the PCI theatre/shakedown arena.
I've personally had issues with Security Metrics. Noticed after the fact an online purchase was conducted entirely in the clear. I contacted the "secured by" banner to complain. Responses I got back were priceless. First they said they were NOT complaint even though their own site still showed they were. When I brought this up all I got was silence followed by no action taken to correct admittedly invalid assertion of certification.
Then months later they told me they were NOW compliant and found no vulnerabilities even though anyone buying something from the site never sees a secure page. All facts trivially confirmed with seconds of manual effort. Even when I brought it up over a series of months, being very polite giving them plenty of time to respond/correct it was like talking to a brick wall.
Nobody cares and nobody seems to have a REASON to care.
From PCI gods to ASAs on down everyone in the chain explicitly disclaims responsibility for their own (in)actions.
Schemes for resetting passwords fundamentally lower the security of the system and almost always rely on insecure transports (Email and SMS).
At the very least users should be given the option of not allowing any password reset or recovery features to be used in conjunction with their account.
Rather than conceding to inevitability of forgotten passwords I would rather see sites warn users ahead of time what the consequences are including suggestion to write it down and store it in a safe place.
Consequently it doesn't cost them any bandwidth so they can provide it to you at lower cost.
Comcast leave money on the table? LOL they spend all of this time decoupling and inventing fees such as broadcast TV fee's, HD technology fees, sports fees, insane rental fees all as separate line items not subject to contract terms absent from advertised costs and you think the armies of Comcast marketing goons are going to give something away? Wouldn't they have done this already with co-located CDN infrastructure? No of course not.
And since the data never has to travel over the Internet to get to them, net neutrality doesn't really apply.
No. The customer network is just a part of the Internet as any other network. Therefore stream data *always* travels over the capitol "I" Internet.
Quick tip for those trying to argue against this. You can't simply argue "Net neutrality good!" There's a real lowered economic cost with the way Comcast delivers these services - they locally host the servers which contain the streaming data, so the data doesn't have to get to them over the Internet. Consequently it doesn't cost them any bandwidth so they can provide it to you at lower cost. And since the data never has to travel over the Internet to get to them, net neutrality doesn't really apply.
Quick tip for those arguing on economic grounds. There is a real economic cost to send a packet across town vs across continents. We should all pay more for packets sent "long distance" to other countries, right?
I can't wait for the Internet peering "channel" lineups...
Basic Internet - Cogent - HE - NTT - AT&T - XO
Expanded Basic Internet (Includes all basic "channels") - Tata - Orange - DT - PCCW - Vodafone
Given falling cost of high density links and insanity in the R&D pipe I would even challenge the premise local is necessarily cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyways, requiring a GMO label is intended for nothing else than to stigmatize.
Translation: People are stupid and must not be allowed to make their own decisions.
is every bit as asinine as the California proposal a few years back to require cell phones have a radiation output level, which is retarded because cell phones emit all of zero Sieverts
So do Microwave ovens.
but some dumb fucks think it's a wonderful idea to have to put manufacturers in the position of making phones that emit less EM energy, and for no good reason whatsoever.
Less EM = increased battery life
The only way to do that would be to allow the computer to override your decisions.
Does AEB override your decisions? What about ABS? Traction control? Power steering? Speed/Rev limiters? CTA? Cruise control?
If the electronics are able to take control over the car without your permission, you aren't really in control; you just have the illusion of control.
In the typical scenario where I get in my POS, drive to work and no electronic dumbass driver alert goes off my driving experience is none different.
The only difference is in the exceptional case where the dumbass alert goes off people don't end up in hospitals or morgues.
You are free to argue adding constraints is the same as "illusion of control" but I'm not sure how such statements are any more useful than arguing "free will" is an illusion.
At that point, you might as well just let the computer drive so you can kick back and check your email, send text messages to your friends, and make out in the back seat... or whatever.
I think *IF* this automation can be made to work reliably it would be great. It would give drivers more options than they have now. If they don't like driving or don't feel like driving they don't have to.
Where I disagree is the assertion manual driving will be necessarily denied because it is deemed to be unsafe. If the technology exists for vehicles to drive themselves at or better than human capability certainly the technology would also exist to assist drivers who decide they want to drive themselves.
The screams of the 30,000 people that die each year in cars should be enough to silence this argument as we move toward autonomous cars. Its time to remove human ego from transportation. We may live to see a day where self-drive is illegal and i cant wait.
Why assume self driving would always carry the same risk going forward? In a future where electronics can drive reliably what prevents the same electronics from rendering self driving safe?
How do you tell it to take off from all the way on the bottom of the sea? Carrier fish?
Two things I dislike are all of these blurry effects and going overboard with bloom. In my view it isn't "cinematic" and doesn't make scenes look better. It is just plain annoying.
Fuck Microsoft for caving and apologizing. Fuck the media for continuing to amplify the voices of a minority who always take offense to everything in a never ending pursuit of fostering controversy and whoring attention for hits and views.
Just because you object to something doesn't grant you the right to ruin it for others who disagree with you.
Is anyone compiling a list of new cars you can get without this crap in them?
Cars are expensive. It likely doesn't take all that many people to say "thanks anyway" and walk off the lot before the message is received.
despite the trappings of Silicon Valley wealth still views the world through the decades-old, anti-establishment prism of its co-founders
Lock-in and walled gardens are anti-establishment? Save the bullshit for someone who cares.
Even after Snowden expose how the American government has been eavesdropping on us, Obama came out accusing Snowden as a traitor, and vowing to continue his Saddam Hussein style of wiping his ass with our Constitution and Bill of Right
"This guys a bad guy and you know thereâ(TM)s still a thing called execution."
"You know, spies in the old days used to be executed"
A few days ago, I flipped on an old 3.1 machine. It started making all kinds of racket, so I thought there was a problem with the cooling fan. To my surprise, it was in the middle of installing Windows 10! It didn't even have a network connection. I called Microsoft, and they said the 10 upgrade would not install on a 3.1 machine. Liars!
See how easy that is? I'd like some evidence, thanks, which no one seems to be able to provide. As far as I can tell, the mystical belief that windows 10 installs itself without any user interaction is 100% pure bullshit.
The issue of whether it happens by itself or happens by accident is a red herring to distract from evil engineering that went into designing an experience intentionally designed to result in accidents.
Imagine a scenario where Microsoft cars randomly remapped foot pedals and direction of steering wheel each time they are driven. It wouldn't just be a few outliers anymore with unfounded complaints of cars going the opposite direction or suddenly stopping instead of going.
The response would not be ... oh I don't believe you... it would be felony charges and suing the vendor into oblivion for deliberately creating an unsafe product.
It is obvious to me by construction of UX Microsoft specifically intends for these "accidents" to happen. It does not matter one bit to me whether the user is at fault or recalls something that didn't actually occur.
At this point I've resigned to add MS to my kill file and move on. If they have this much contempt and disregard for their customers now... Just imagine what they are going to be like when they really start to lose market share. Better abandon ship now while the abandoning is good.
Microsoft is not stupid. They know all about Interface design and human factors. What they are doing is like an infomercial or PR department spewing misleading language while technically may be true is intentionally knowingly designed to leverage ignorance or trick people who are not lawyers into making implicit assumptions. Whether machines are upgrading themselves or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact people are being fucked over by a deliberate and conscious action on the part of Microsoft.
How can anyone expect integrity from a corporation who intentionally installs and enables backdoors access by default allowing Microsoft to read any file or setting they feel like from your computer without your knowledge or consent?
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
Do yourselves a favor, cut your losses and bail.
That has jack shit to do with it being DOCSIS. As long as the node is not oversubscribed, and the CMTS is not oversubscribed, you can all still get full speeds all day long.
At 1gbit per modem how many people do you think can actually pull that rate at the same time on a node? 2? 3? 4? How many on the average node? 200? 400?
And the fiber to the home that Google (and Verizon, etc.) are selling is NOT a dedicated fiber pair going all the way back to the provider's core. It also uses
Google is doing GPON if I remember correctly which means passive optics and no contested access.
a "local loop" type of topology which is shared among you and your neighbors, and can suffer the exact same oversubscription issues if the provider doesn't keep the equipment upgraded to meet demand.
Comcast's coax offers a max frequency of 1ghz. Light pipes have a max frequency in the hundreds of thz range.
I don't buy arguments secure boot loaders make systems appreciably any safer. Physical access is game over no matter what. Successful remote root exploit is also game over in terms of at least exfiltration of data even if attack can be rendered non-persistent after reboot it can also be accomplished with protected media.
The real purpose and biggest winners from secure boot loaders are vendors who use them to prevent people from modifying the computers they purchased.
I don't buy any excuse supporting the current system of planet scale trust anchors where compromise of a single private key stands to compromise millions or billions of systems world wide. This is both standard operating procedure across the industry and also happens to be perfectly inexcusably insane.
We are abusing PKI in ways that promote compromise and unnecessarily endanger users. There simply is no reason for this. All that needs to be done is for global trust to be limited for the purposes of service discovery and bootstrapping to off-ramp more localized sources of trust.
If you do this damage associated with key compromise is significantly limited and would be a useless thing to request in any court.
I look at third party doctrine, patriot act sec 215 and real world examples of Operator receiving NSL+gag order for private key even though they offered to comply with request to write code to get data without compromising others.
So yes I don't agree with DOJ threats nor the patriot act, third party doctrine, warrantless bulk data collection...etc..etc. I don't believe Apple should be forced to hand over private keys nor bless system images they don't want to bless no matter what. It isn't proportional and compelled speech is not consistent with a free society.
Having said all that what we're doing today is wrong and dangerous. In many ways the government requests are a wakeup call highlighting implementation and structural failures... Technical people involved and the industry as a whole needs to quit whining and bitching about government requests and spend more time thinking about how they fucked up.
The decisions made in this case could have immense negative effects in many other areas as well. First they're after Apple's source code repository and signature key and next they'll be serving backdoors or start decrypting computers using Windows Update. That is unarguably a real possibility now.
Your blowing this way out of proportion. It isn't as if Microsoft already has a backdoor that allows their engineers to access any data on your system regardless of FDE without your knowledge.
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
Oops... never mind.
Does this mean that causality is only a suggestion, or will the physical constraint of having to usefully entangle the two points save the day here?
Causation is only violated for superluminal propagation. If you don't propagate there is no violation.
I love how they try to insist this is new and somehow unique or different from anything that has gone on for thousands of years since language was nothing more than a series of grunts.
People always had the capability to speak or write in code or riddles to conceal thoughts from others. Doing the same thing with (insert modern tool here) may well provide additional capabilities or conveniences not before possible but is not a new or foreign concept. The implications are no different.
Regardless of technology used to protect stored thoughts or communication between trusted individual there is always a commons where those with evil aims must operate to find buyers or sellers for illicit goods and services, recruit and gather materials..etc. Given requirements for search under the 4th something other than private communications and stored data must serve as primary venue and vehicle by which investigations are supposed to start.
Okay, Microsoft has been injecting all sorts of stuff in their interest a the expense of their customers since Windows XP (WGA). We've had more "phone home" since WGA, and progressively more with each release. Windows 10 is the result of prodding a broom handle up our butts progressively deeper and seeing how deep it goes before we say "stop". The "telemetry" (really?!?) data collection, which MS admits you cannot turn off, and now ads in IE?
It just isn't data collection Microsoft has a full blown BACKDOOR it can deploy at will to exfiltrate ANYTHING it wants from a Windows 10 users system by DEFAULT without their CONSENT or KNOWLEDGE.
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
When do we say "enough is enough".
The most egregious aspect of this in my view is actually the domain check. It is one thing to hide political messages in a security update. I don't consider this to be defensible behavior.
To me the domain check signals Microsoft knows full well what they are doing is wrong so they installed a little check to limit outrage and damage from customers who pay them the most money. It reflects a willfully deliberate calculation of what they believe they can get away with.
Unless you are a gamer or have specific hardware (medical mainly), nobody needs MS Windows
Thank goodness cost of developing multi-platform games continues to fall as major game engines support more platforms out of the box and Vulkan inevitably overtakes dx12.
A trojan horse is something that claims to be something that it isn't.
Well it claims to be a security update and it isn't.
Everything is very up front about what it is so long as you actually read what it is. It may be a bit underhanded, but it most certainly isn't a trojan horse.
In other words you could have always pried upon the horse to make sure it wasn't filled with soldiers and incendiary devices.
The customer isn't accessing the server from the Internet.
What makes you say that?
The customer has an Internet IP and is using it to communicate with another private Internet network.
Is there some kind of distance requirement how many networks you have to transition before it is considered the Internet? If so can you point me to that definition?
The server and the customer are on the same WAN.
The customers network is a LAN which interconnects with Comcast's network just like every other node on the Internet interconnects with each other... One gigantic WAN.
Right. But the customer network isn't the Internet either. Dumbass.
The Internet is nothing more aggregate of all networks in the global federation.
The customer network is *part* of the Internet just the same as AS15169 is *part* of the Internet.
To get to the Internet, the customer goes to Comcast's network, which forwards them to the Internet
Comcast's network is part of the Internet. The customers network is part of the Internet. Anything Comcast forwards packets to is part of the Internet. Every public or private network in the federation is part of the Internet.
If I connect to my neighbor down the street using their public IP who also happen to have Comcast I am using the Internet to communicate with another peer on the Internet. I'm part of the Internet, Comcast is part of the Internet, My neighbor is part of the Internet.
To get to this service, the customer goes to Comcast's network, which forwards them to a different server on Comcast's network. It doesn't forward them to the Internet because the server that streams this stuff isn't on the Internet.
Comcast's network is part of the Internet. The users network is part of the Internet. When data leaves customers network is it traveling over the Internet. When data leaves Comcast network and arrives at customers network it is traveling over the Internet. At no time is the Internet not involved.
I think the FTC just hit a jackpot. For sure lots of ripe low hanging fruit to be plucked in the PCI theatre/shakedown arena.
I've personally had issues with Security Metrics. Noticed after the fact an online purchase was conducted entirely in the clear. I contacted the "secured by" banner to complain. Responses I got back were priceless. First they said they were NOT complaint even though their own site still showed they were. When I brought this up all I got was silence followed by no action taken to correct admittedly invalid assertion of certification.
Then months later they told me they were NOW compliant and found no vulnerabilities even though anyone buying something from the site never sees a secure page. All facts trivially confirmed with seconds of manual effort. Even when I brought it up over a series of months, being very polite giving them plenty of time to respond/correct it was like talking to a brick wall.
Nobody cares and nobody seems to have a REASON to care.
From PCI gods to ASAs on down everyone in the chain explicitly disclaims responsibility for their own (in)actions.
Schemes for resetting passwords fundamentally lower the security of the system and almost always rely on insecure transports (Email and SMS).
At the very least users should be given the option of not allowing any password reset or recovery features to be used in conjunction with their account.
Rather than conceding to inevitability of forgotten passwords I would rather see sites warn users ahead of time what the consequences are including suggestion to write it down and store it in a safe place.
--
From origional descent devs
http://media.revivalprod.com/O...
Consequently it doesn't cost them any bandwidth so they can provide it to you at lower cost.
Comcast leave money on the table? LOL they spend all of this time decoupling and inventing fees such as broadcast TV fee's, HD technology fees, sports fees, insane rental fees all as separate line items not subject to contract terms absent from advertised costs and you think the armies of Comcast marketing goons are going to give something away? Wouldn't they have done this already with co-located CDN infrastructure? No of course not.
And since the data never has to travel over the Internet to get to them, net neutrality doesn't really apply.
No. The customer network is just a part of the Internet as any other network. Therefore stream data *always* travels over the capitol "I" Internet.
Quick tip for those trying to argue against this. You can't simply argue "Net neutrality good!" There's a real lowered economic cost with the way Comcast delivers these services - they locally host the servers which contain the streaming data, so the data doesn't have to get to them over the Internet. Consequently it doesn't cost them any bandwidth so they can provide it to you at lower cost. And since the data never has to travel over the Internet to get to them, net neutrality doesn't really apply.
Quick tip for those arguing on economic grounds. There is a real economic cost to send a packet across town vs across continents. We should all pay more for packets sent "long distance" to other countries, right?
I can't wait for the Internet peering "channel" lineups...
Basic Internet
- Cogent
- HE
- NTT
- AT&T
- XO
Expanded Basic Internet (Includes all basic "channels")
- Tata
- Orange
- DT
- PCCW
- Vodafone
Given falling cost of high density links and insanity in the R&D pipe I would even challenge the premise local is necessarily cheaper.
Once you travel outside Comcast's network, then you're on the Internet.
Customer network is outside Comcast network.