explain how that works. you've just made a statement of unsupported belief

i've explained to you reality, straightforward: a high cost of entry into the market prevents competition. high cost alone

you have opposed my description of reality. that's fine, you don't have to agrere with me

but you have to be able to explain how or why i am wrong. you have not done that

"go read my religious literature" is not an argument

if you can't make your case in plain language, that says something doesn't it?

an unsupported faith in an unsupported statement is trendy nonsense

a fiber rollout for a large city costs {X}

{X} is huge

therefore {X} is a barrier for competition

what's the difficulty with grasping this straightforward concept exactly?

so explain it to me

it's not government mandated, it's a *natural* monopoly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

things like fire, police, healthcare, powerplants: there is no market for such things. for a number of reasons. with broadband it's because of high barrier to entry: no one has the billions to gamble on entering the market with uncertain payout

oh google does. so go ahead and wait 40 years until they get to your city

but if you make believe (like the usa does) that things like broadband and healthcare are free markets, you just wind up with grossly expensive, inefficient jokes

what we need is universal healthcare, and government owned fiber

i hear it already: "oh you evil socialist statist..." *drool, snort*

i don't like the government. but unlike some people, i recognize that on the topic of *natural* monopolies, government control is the least horrible situation, and certainly better than the usa's joke of healthcare system or approach to broadband

capitalism is a wonderful tool. i love capitalism

for example: governments should own all fiber, and then lease it to private companies to deliver services. any private company can lease to provide any service. that's wonderful capitalism, embraced in a manner of fair competition. without the bullshit notion they own the fiber too, and there's "competition". no there isn't. and there never will be. and no government policy is to blame. it's the simple nature of the sector fo the economy: too high of a cost to enter. no one else can afford to roll out the fiber

capitalism is not a fucking religion, and it has its limits

natural monopolies represent those limits

if you don't understand what a natural monopoly is, stop talking about economics, you don't understand the topic

government is not your enemy, rent seeking parasites CORRUPTING your government are. you want to remove the corruption and have your government work for you. not weaken and remove government, thereby allowing the monopolists to rape you even more

there's just a certain kind of person in the world that think government is the problem no matter what. and on topics where the real problem is something else: natural monopolies, they simply enable the monopolists by misdirecting their anger at the wrong target (government). propaganda funded by the plutocrats are happy to feed this error, because indeed, with a weakened government, they get to rape you even more without even the pesky need to buy off congresscritters and pass warped regulations at all

First bear in mind the attacker has local code execution. If they can put up a fake screengrabber, it's just a logout/reboot away from running a trojaned compositor (if you use Wayland), a trojaned screenlocker (if you use X) and on either system without even a reboot, a trojaned browser, terminal, ssh program and so on and so forth. So to say this is a serious flaw with X is hyperbole.

The next case is that you also claim Wayland is secure. Therefore X11 running on Wayland is secure. Therefore in that case X11 is being run in a secure manner. I claim that if that is the case, then X11 could very easily be secured, because it's eassy to see it in operation nowrunning in a way that the additional insecuritu doesn't break things.

I'm not really sure how creating yet another way for a "designated program" to monitor input events is supposed to address the problem that any X11 client can monitor keyboard events on any window in the absence of a grab, unless you intend to rewrite all existing software to grab the keyboard on receiving input focus, and force all the desktop environments to implement support for the extension and move their global keybindings into a specially designated client. At that point you might was well switch to a system designed for secure I/O from day oneâ"like Wayland.

OK, I'm lightly lost so I'm going to swing back to the original point.

First there's the one about server grabs which prevent other windows from opening. Well, you could easily have a protocol extension that allows only one connected client to bring up windows anyway. The continuation of the grab could either be faked to the grabber, or killed outright (the latter feature---killing grabs---was removed from Xorg by the wayland people because they decided we didn't need it!). Let's say it's first come, first serve, so that the first client to request this feature is the only one to get it. Or the screenlocker could get that command. This requires the WM and screenlocker to be run on boot before a trojan, but as I pointed out, if the system is that deeply trojanned anyway, then this is all pointless.

That requires some rewriting to whichever screenlockers you want to add the feature to, hardly a major undertaking since there's about 3 in common use and a few, more obscure, ones.

The other problem---a designated screen lock key combo. Well, if the screen locker has a passive grab on ctrl-alt-delete, then the fake screenlocker can't grab that, so that already works.

It's easy to implement the insecure X11 model on top of a secure system. The reverse is much more difficult.

Why? Why not have exactly the same security model? You haven't explained, only asserted, that your chosen security feature couldn't be easily available under X.

In fact when it comes to locking things down, there are things like the X security protocol, which blocks untrusted programs from executing various protocol commands. This already exists and could (I haven't checked if it does) easily block things like receiving events from a window on another connection, reparenting or redirecting a window on another connection, diddling with the global keymap and so on.

Anyway if there's unsanboxed local code execution, you're basically screwed on any system.

You're not going to get any of my data that way, which is what is actually important.

I'm not sure I follow. Surely if I had unlocked access to your phone, I could simply read whatever data was on there? Also, can you install free apps without an additional password? If so what stops me installing a keyboard app trojan?

Honest question: I don't own an iPhone. If it stops those kind of attacks it would be great to know how.

c'mon man, don't mess it up

it's called the IoT of Things

there isn't an IoTa of awareness

What exactly would you propose to add? This isn't a matter of implementing new functionality, but rather removing fundamental misfeatures. Any change to address this issue is going to end up breaking existing applications which depend on the original input behavior.

Oh how about a new protocol extension that allows one designated program to receive all keyboard inputs regardless of any other grabs. The X11 server can keep on pretending that the other grabbers still have such a grab.

Look: X11 works on Windows even though windows can apparently REALLY gab the keyboard. X11 will we are told work on Wayland too despite the fact that wayland can apparently REALLY grab they keyboard. Do you really think it couldn't be extended to do that itself?

insane != abstract

you don't get to redefine words as their opposite meaning and expect to sound logically coherent

"i'm going to redefine 'wet' as 'dry' and continue talking about climatology and expect people to still take me seriously..."

okay, crackpot

i'm not willing to entertain the mental gymnastics whereby moderation is defined as an extreme

you're nuts dude

i stopped reading there

how did that work with cuba? iran? north korea? china?

what you're asking for is massacred citizens

iran for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

no matter how many intelligent, forward thinking students you have agitating in the cities, the government just calls up busloads of basiji thugs from the countryside and cracks skulls until change seekers shut up in fear. or worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

slow stead engagement is what really works

reactionary inflexibility simply means no change at all

welcome to reality

this is you:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

pragmatism, flexibility, realism, compromise always wins

inflexible ideological dogmatism is how you lose and are ignored

well yeah, by definition a rock star is very rare

so if you want a rockstar working for you, you better be ready to shell out big money or provide truly extraordinary perks

you can't just expect or demand rock star status from average or even above average programmers. you can't mold people's personalities like their technical proficiency. i suppose there does exist stress mitigating strategies someone can consciously adapt. but from the rock star i met, it is a sort of chilly immunity to even the concept of stress that is quite awesome to behold

that's why i quoted eisenhower

because when i met such a person, i immediately thought of someone functioning under the stresses of extreme combat. i thought of this person on the eastern front in wwii. what it would take to survive *real* stress, because stress in programming, while real, taken in perspective to something like fields of combat, is a joke

i always wondered if this person had indeed been in such an extreme stressful environment, like war. a sort of "once i've seen that, none of this shit impresses me." because indeed, nothing seemed to impress him. you could scream in his face and he would react the same as if you were casually discussing gardening. nothing phased the dude

i have met a person with that stress proof personality, and above average talent. they exist. those are the rockstars

not sure if joking (look around here, there are some socially autistic morons on slashdot)

if you are joking, thanks for the laugh

if not, the middle way and compromise as an extreme is... stupid. not even logically coherent