Comment Re:Jarrah (Score 1) 82
Ooh. We'll have a look. Thanks!
Ooh. We'll have a look. Thanks!
Hi @dotdancohen, We're using Matias Quiet Click switches. We're definitely aware that different folks have different preferences and assuming we can make the numbers and logistics go, we hope to offer several other Matias Alps options including their louder variant.
The ÂTron isn't for sale. (Nor is the Fingerworks or any of the other weirder stuff.)
I'd love to hear/read more about the leather keycaps.
And yep, I've actually been documenting my prototypes on GH
Yep. It's not for everybody. This is the first thing we're making. If it goes well enough, we'll definitely be looking at a 'traditional' layout option.
Bamboo is certainly on the list of wood-like things we're considering.
We're not planning to make them PS/2 compatible out of the box, but we'd love firmware patches. (and or design help) to make them so. If you can do it with an Arduino Leonardo, you'll be able to do it with one of our Keyboards
Right because there is no way a little traffic analysis can't tell the difference between some typical GET and POST request sent on an SSL channel and video stream.
It might be slightly harder to tell the difference between a video stream and a large file download but by no means impossible. You can do this much with (relatively) inexpensive COTS routing and fire-walling equipment now.
Nope just SSL or just tunneled ipsec for that matter won't cut it; you going to have to put some traffic analysis thwarting measures in there too, which means even more waste than the tunnel overhead. So ultimately VZ is making things worse for themselves in terms of network traffic, unless they are only going to allow busty stuff like webpage downloads.
Still even the typical slashdot'ers home setup is very much on the losing end of the arms race as things stand today. The only reason VPN success is VZ isn't really trying that hard.
then you may as well just give the server the AES key and ask it to decrypt the file
But in that model, if "the server" has the key, wouldn't Dropbox have the key? I thought that was the whole thing people were freaking out about.
No, you'd have the key. If you wanted to share the file publicly, then there's no point in keeping it encrypted, so you'd provide the server with the key and it would decrypt, saving you the cost of downloading and reencrypting.
I understand what you (and the AC) are saying about storing an encrypted key on the server, and then re-encrypting the key for each new user you'd want to share with. That's a clever arrangement and I admit that I hadn't thought of it, but it still seems like it has the potential to create more complexity than most people want to deal with. It still means you need to manage various encryption keys, and we (Internet culture) seem intent on not developing a coherent system for managing encryption keys.
The client just needs one key, the RSA (or equivalent) public key. You'd need to copy this between devices, but it's relatively small (under 1KB). It's small enough to fit in a version 40 QR code quite easily, so you could set up mobile devices by displaying the QR code on your laptop screen and point the mobile device's camera at it, if you don't have any sensible way of transferring files between devices. The client then has to download the file and the associated key, decrypt the key with the locally-stored key, and then decrypt the file, but that's not something that's exposed to the user.
This bill actually does very little. The DMCA is written very broadly, and has been commonly interpreted as to prohibit cell phone unlocking. Because Congress, in the 90s, when they enacted the stupid thing, was aware that the DMCA could go too far, but didn't want to be cautious or have to keep reexamining the law itself, they gave authority to the Library of Congress to add exceptions to it in specific cases. The process for these exceptions is that every three years, anyone who wants an exception has to plead their case. If found worthy, they get an exception. But the exception only lasts until the next rule making session, three years hence. Then it has to be reargued from scratch or lost.
Two rule making sessions ago, the Library of Congress found that cellphone unlocking was worthy of an exception. But in the most recent rule making session, they did not find it worthy, and the exception was lost; it went back to its default state of being illegal.
This law could have amended the DMCA to permanently allow cellphone unlocking. Or it could've directed the Library of Congress to always find that cellphone unlocking is allowed. But it does neither of these.
Instead it only reinstates the rule from two sessions ago for the remainder of the current session. Next year it will have to be argued again, from scratch, to the Library of Congress, or lost, again. And even if argued, it can be rejected, again.
This is less than useless. It's only a temporary patch, it doesn't even have an iota of long term effect (the rules don't take precedent into account, and this doesn't change it), and we've wasted all this effort getting it instead of something worthwhile.
If congressional staff is denied this recreational outlet, they will just find other mischief.
Which can only result in more laws and more spending
On the Internet... Hype = Sucker Investors.
There, FTFY.
A Tesla with an extra 1/2 battery pack would bust that record.
So, really, with a half-pack of bonus batteries in the trunk of a Model S Elon Musk could easily set a new world record?
I love the quote, "Five hundred kilometres is pretty much as far as a normal person would want to drive in a single day." Oh, man, I've driven further to see a live show, and driven back essentially the next day (It's ~750km to NYC from my house). I wouldn't want to drive that every day, but It's not unusual to top 500km for a long weekend/vacation trip which we do multiple times a year.
Better, faster, cheaper.
Choose two.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
