Comment SSL all the way, baby... (Score 1) 186
I always use the https version of websites. Especially those that use OpenSSL. That's super secure and keeps me protected all the time.
Oh, no wait, that might not be right...
I always use the https version of websites. Especially those that use OpenSSL. That's super secure and keeps me protected all the time.
Oh, no wait, that might not be right...
Wtf? I thought this discussion was about Internet connections... why don't you just chuck some random shit in, like you're all offended because someone's comments could be construed as a criticism of your country?
Clearly you're upset because everyone in your nation is being screwed by the ISPs. But if you are, don't go defending your country by putting up bollocks arguments against what is patently obvious.
I can understand public owned infrastructure if there is limited space or these things introduce huge public safety issues (such as come with rail or road infrastructure), but this is all about a piece of wire. If the wires were so huge that you could only run one length to service dozens of houses (such as you get with a road) you might have a good argument. But this patently isn't the case.
It's far better not to rely on one network, as doing so introduces a monopoly, and creates its own problems when services fail. What you really want is at least two, and preferably many more network providers that run wires to large numbers of homes. That brings healthy competition which in turn brings lower prices and better service.
As a customer, the download rate you'll be getting has nothing to do with infrastructure quality or how much you pay, it's determined by some cosy little deal between your ISP and a movie provider. You have no freedom to enter a contract knowing what you're buying from your ISP - so it sounds like a class action suit could do very well.
But then again, the network infrastructure is owned by the ISP - they can charge what they like for it and to whoever they like. What you really need is competition, at least one other network infrastructure provider. That'd kick the protectionist blackguard ISP to change their stupid policy over throttling.
What's that I smell?
In this case, it's garbage. i live in the UK, and I had five different options for providers for my Internet connection. If one was throttling my connection, I'd go elsewhere. The only reason Verizon and Comcast get away with this is because they have a cosy little cartel, and together hold Netflix to ransom.
Well, name calling certainly won that argument. Oh, hang on, no it didn't.
Noise that is indistinguishable from white noise is -actually- white noise. If you can't distinguish a signal from noise, then it's not a signal.
If you can distinguish, then you can recognise it as a signal. Even in a signal that looks a helluva lot like white noise contains the traits that allow you discern the difference. Even if they are well hidden, they're still there, which -actually- allows you to distinguish between the signal and nose. The casual observer might walk past such a signal, but we're talking here about an signalling method that will be available to read - anyone who knows what the signal looks like and is looking for such signals will be able to see it, even if they can't decrypt it because they don't have the encryption keys.
The problem here is that you've (rather stupidly) assumed that the poster I replied to may have meant that an encrypted signal could be indistinguishable to the casual observer. But they didn't say that, it was -your- assumption. Fortunately for you, there are some smarter people here to put you right.
No, never had a run-in with the FCC. I, like most people on the planet, do not live anywhere they have jurisdiction.
You're assuming that the gear produced here will be huge radio sets of the kind used by ham enthusiasts. I think the target here is for much smaller stuff. Even in the -very- unlikely even that the FCC could indeed demonstrate who had generated any given signal, then confiscating $50 or $100 worth of cheap radio kit and trying to fine them will make no difference to the project.
... doesn't look -in any way- inconvenient.
I thought they were best known for making grandiose claims that never came to fruition? Remember how they were going to destroy facebook?
I thought they'd done that? They logged on to Facebook, decided it was already rubbish and left it as-is. Job done.
I can see it now. A four or five middle aged or older, possibly bearded men (a generation of geek ahead of us) turning up to wag fingers and generally tut at hundreds of Anonymous protesters.
Of course, there is absolutely nothing to stop them reporting the Anonymous protesters to the authorities for this. Only two problems with this. 1. The 'perpetrators' are Anonymous, so you don't know who they are. 2. The perpetrators don't give a shit.
So... you take your broadcast and 'encrypt' it by replacing it with random (I'm presuming white) noise. How does this help?
Surely, if it's indistinguishable from random noise, then it really is random noise? Unless you -can- distinguish it because you know how the encryption algorithm works?
I love the idea of sending a jpeg by semaphore. Can't see it working for smoke signals, though.
Wow, I'm impressed. Do we now have to drop the old:
insmod
and now use
insrocker
Does this mean my Kernel will be tainted? With Rock and Roll?
...Americans with Really Fat Hands to play golf?
Yes. One-nil to the petty minded...
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth