Posts by Charles 9

Re: A solution to the problem already exists

Except that CableCARDs are ONE-WAY ONLY. They're useless for on-demand and other applications that require two-way interactivity.

Re: "non-geeks have shown little interest in the security of their IoT gizmos "

"For consumer gadgets and whizz-bangs there should be some minimum standard (akin to the CE mark on electrical and/or wireless devices) that certifies a level of compliance and security. Of course that won't stop the criminally negligent (or simply criminal), but it would give responsible manufacturers a standard to comply with and enforcement authorities something to work with, like when you find toys painted with lead"

Thing is, nice guys finish last in this world, and the bad guys have gotten the knack of cutting and running down to a routine, so the law doesn't really scare them anymore. Plus, all else fails, they can hide behind China, who's already notorious for not caring how much they knock down the West (it's their way of waging war without waging war, after all).

Re: Culture change required

OK, now how do you get those expensive requirements through the board, who likely have escape plans in place so really don't care about legal ramifications?

Re: @ Jim Willsher

Because at some point they get SO clogged not even alcohol will clean them. That's why I had to junk the PicureMates (because their carts contain alcohol in them for head cleaning but they still weren't getting the nozzles clean; they'd basically reached the "baked-on grease" state where nothing short of physical manhandling would clean them, and since the head is hidden behind non-user-servicable panels, that's why I went back to the PhotoSmart; at least there you can reach the head).

Re: Inkjet?

They're currently the goto method for compact photo printing. All the other methods tend to be more specialized and therefore more expensive, both in printer and materials. They're also a viable option if you do infrequent color printing.

Re: All Inkjet printers are expensive and shit

Unless you frequently do color. On photo paper.

Re: HP Shoots itself in the foot

They did. Two things spring to mind: Loss Leading and No Business Like REPEAT Business. As for the competition, they can point to hard-to-clean clogs.

Re: Choice

Choice is not always for the best. Consider Decision Paralysis.

My beef with Epson is that carts and nozzles are separate: a real problem when you don't use them for a while and then dry up and clog. I stopped buying Picture mates because of that. At least with HP, you get fresh nozzles with each cart.

No, as I was trying to point out, how do you dial in exactly 1 minute, 20 seconds on a dial? A digital clock timer with keypad makes it pretty damn easy: 1-2-0-START. Easy, peasy, and dead easy to redo. That's the definition of precision. Try doing that on a dial with only 15-second marks on it...

Re: I know this one!

So how did people pass things like pictures around when they had nothing to their name BUT a cell phone number?

Re: " I don't even want a digital panel. A knob ... is a far more appropriate interface.

"Life can be so easy ..."

Until you blow up a sausage in it. Life is never easy for long...

"It only works well if what you want is what it does. If you want something else then it doesn't. However one of the good things about open source OSs is that you have a choice."

It's also the BAD thing about getting simple users to use your OS. Think decision paralysis. And they outnumber you.

Re: Give me functionality any day

"I think an ideal solution would be to skin applications to have a techie mode and a dummy mode...hide all the functionality under the covers and build two user interfaces. You have to have both - computers and phones are no longer the exclusive geek toys they were. Personally, I'd love to see simplistic terminal UIs come back where it made sense...IBM midrange and mainframe come to mind due to their ease of understanding what to do even if you've never seen the system before."

But remember Murphy's Law. Inevitably, a dumb user will switch the app to Expert Mode and get hopelessly lost. You just can't win, but since the stupid users outnumber the smart users, guess who wins?

Re: There are basic rules for good UI design...

But remember that Microsoft has to cater to STUPID. And by that I mean people who keep asking the help desk, "What's a mouse?" yet are expected to use these things to do important stuff...like benefits filing or taxes. And since you can't fix stupid, teaching them is pretty much a lost cause, so stooping to their level is the only way to get through to them.

"A knob that you turn to set the cooking time is a far more appropriate interface. And why does there have to be a clock? The whole point of microwaves is that they cook stuff quickly."

The catch being that something that cooks stuff quickly also means you can OVERcook something quickly. And if you're nuking something enclosed, like a sausage, you DO NOT want to overcook it or you'll be spending the night cleaning the innards out of the innards of your microwave. Clocks allow for precision, which is pretty important in fast jobs with little margin for error.

On the other hand, they could just vanish and leave you in the lurch, if the Internet was the ONLY thing keeping the service alive. Since local service costs money that may not be there, which way do you think it'll go?

"The only solution to DDoS is to ensure that a website's capacity is greater than that of the capcity of the attackers."

But that sounds like a losing battle to me. Pretty sure at some point someone's going to cook up the mother of all DDoS attacks with a traffic magnification not in the thousands but in the millions, with traffic in the exabyte per second range: such that anyone that needed to defend against an attack that massive probably couldn't afford it in any event. THEN what?

Re: The d*ckhead who bought it is your average punter.

"How about one hardened smart controller and a host of utterly stupid devices that know their own function and no other."

Those are CUSTOM jobs. Custom jobs are EXPENSIVE...to expensive to make it worthwhile, so it MUST be generic or bust. And who cares about the law? They can just vanish in the night when the time comes...

Re: We all compensate for each other

"The human system works because we correct each others' errors."

But can't a computer do the same, only with a smaller reaction time?

Re: Is there a story here?

"Most US intersections have the green come on as soon as the opposing side goes red."

Actually, most intersection insert a second or two of all red before changing the other side to green. Those that change the instant the other side is red is rare and probably tend to have more T-bones because of cars with bad brakes coming onto the intersection at the judgment call area (right as the lines turn solid, right as the light turns yellow) and decide it's better to rush through than to try to stop and probably end up over the line and nailed for running red anyway.

"That's where the industry is at right now, and will continue to be until some way of understanding "good" security vs. "bad" security can be automatically and easily computed."

But the human factor always gets involved which is why computers can't do it and why you need human actuaries; it takes one to know one, basically.

If that were true, Faraday cages would be illegal. The FCC can only regulate active interference. Passive interference is another matter altogether.

Re: Mr

"I am curious, everyone who says they did not do this refers to the fact that they used no active electronic means to accomplish their goals. But does this "intentional block or disrupt" only apply if someone uses active electronic means to block access to other WiFi networks."

That's exactly the point. Jammers are illegal (the Marriot case amounted to a jammer), but shunts (which are passive and simply redirect radio waves away from an area) are NOT. That's why it's legal to build a Faraday cage.

Re: Like to see them try...

"Private property still not give license to commit an illegal act, in this case, the blocking of users right to their own paid-for signal of their choice."

If it's a right, then it must be enumerated somewhere. Where in the law does it say one is guaranteed access to their subscribed service? Last I checked, it's not illegal to create a passive not-spot like a Faraday cage.

Re: NAT and firewalling and stuff

"What about carrier-grade NAT? It's trivial to STUN through it. I've done it regularly. And both ends are frequently NATted when you're using STUN. This is an everyday occurrence. Your objection makes as much sense as someone saying "Oh? And what about if someone's using 110V to power their PC?"; it's a total irrelevance."

Not as trivial as you think (especially if one end is multiple-NATted such would be the case with a CGN), plus there's performance penalties. It's all noted in RFC 7021: "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications".

Re: NAT and firewalling and stuff

"Perhaps you'd like to provide a reference for that statement, since it's never been true to my recollection."

OK.

"Despite its origination in the IETF, many in the Internet's standard-setting community have criticized increased NAT usage because it violates the end-to-end architectural philosophy which has underpinned the Internet (and precursor networks) since its inception. Internet engineers first articulated this philosophy in the mid-1980s and later formalized this Internet principle in the IAB's "Architectural Principles of the Internet" document."

Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance, Laura DeNardis, p157-8

So like I said, end-to-end accessibility is part of the fundamental nature of the Internet, which NAT violates in one-to-many mode. NAT66 and other one-to-one NATs are fine, however, because they still allow endpoints the ability to be accessed at their discretion (and perhaps that's the thing we need to consider--granting the ability but expecting the responsibility to say no, much like allowing people the vote even if they (like dumb Internet devices) may be too stupid to use it properly).

Re: Politically correct

Ever heard of the Offhand Backhand? PC just means haters couch their language and listeners pick up on it. That which we call an N-word by any other name would sting as bad and so on...

Re: Statistical FAIL

I thought critics were MORE likely to complain and answer these things with 1's.

Re: Dilemma

But then you just pwn the GATE. Or just end-run around it and find a way to attack a kernel-level process, if not the kernel itself.

Re: Damage is done

I've taken a look at the gamingonlinux.com, and as I suspected, almost all of them are made by indies with little to hold them back. And while most engines these days are multiplat, developers still don't put forth the effort to make the actual games (which are more than just those engines) multiplat. Why is it that not even Valve can convince the major developers or publishers to support Linux? Take EA, for instance. Sure, the Frostbite engine is multiplat, but where's the latest Madden or FIFA or whatever for Linux? It would have to take something serious to make gaming devs take Linux seriously, and so far not even the backlash of Windows 10 is doing that (probably because Win10 is practically a two-fer: developing for Win10 makes developing for the Xbox One a lot easier). And Valve won't help with that since they know which platform has the most Steam installs (not to mention the largest supported library--compare them for yourself). So it's not like we're going to see a major title come to PC but only to Linux; it would be fiscal suicide.

Re: Somebody will teach it to be racist

Sure it can, if its subject matter is racist. An opinion can be racist even after the speaker changes his/her mind (or dies).

Re: being able to programatically shut it off

You'd be better of legally contracting for a customized phone so you can disable that kind of stuff at low level. Otherwise, Google Play Services will always hold the final call, which can be problematic in the face of Doctor/Patient Confidentiality laws.