...If you are fat.
Ah, not entirely true it turns out, I can click a link and go to their non-international version
Which has irritated me somewhat, as it would have allowed me to bypass excessive currency conversion fees.
If you choose to have censored internet access you can't sign up and are told to choose another ISP.
I love those guys.
They already support blacklisting IMEI serials on phones, but the problem being that there is no global IMEI blacklist, so stolen phones get shipped around the world very quickly. This solution from apple allows them to seize this control from the network operators, which is a good and bad thing.
Currently most phone security exists in its baseband. The baseband could easily have a hardware security mode that requires the equivalent of unlocking by the manufacturer to make it work again. Unlocking modern phones is still pretty tricky and is much harder to defeat than the standard OS security, for example, you can root an android phone, but still not unlock the baseband very easily. This whole thing could be standardised across all manufacturers too, yet allow freedom of OS on the device.
Run your own google reader:
This clip if of a radio presenter trying to speak when this effect is applied, its quite astounding:
Support exists now:
Say you had received 10 bitcoins, you would have a private key which could generate a matching signature to unlock the public key it was transferred to.
When you spend say 4 coins, you create a transaction and publish it to the network. This transaction consists of
1) A point to the place in history where it was transferred to you
2) An amount, 4 bitcoins and an address of a recepient public key
3) An amount, 6 bitcoins and an address of a new public key you have just generated, and hold the private key for
Any attempt to respend this coin would be rejected by the network as it has been marked as used. To spend the remaining 6 you would have to point to its new location and if you had restored your wallet to an old version you'd have lost the private key for that, thus losing you all 10 sadly.
I've not deployed DNSSEC, but i was interested by your comments about exposing zone data at least.
I did a quick google and it suggests that used to be the case but from bind 9.6.0 onwards it can use NSEC3 to hash the child names.
Worth looking into for anyone who is concerned.
What the hell is a bad performance improvement?
Must be similar to a positive regression.