Good point. I wonder if they would ever actually do this? It's definitely non-trivial, but they may have people with the capability of doing that.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
They *should*, if their goal of legitimizing Open Source video drivers is true.
Legitimizing Linux gaming is not really dependent on having open source the drivers. It is dependent on having good drivers. Valve does not have a stated goal of supporting open source. Their goal is to sell games.
This article is spot on. I've experienced this when working with 3D objects on Thingiverse. It allows you to "remix" someone's work, but that is a fork. It doesn't really allow for collaboration. Lots of times I've found someone's
Lots of people make their objects to work for just themselves. It's the hardware equivalent of "works on my machine!" It's great that they have a way to publish and get the object out there. It allows other people do the "systems engineering" and figure out how to make the part work in general. But most of that engineering work gets lost. So many times I download an object, only to find it didn't quite work. I improve it, and then nobody else gets to benefit from that. It's kinda sad.
FYI: The article says they aren't using VPN. They are fooling Hulu's geolocating system since it is based on DNS.
The concept of geoblocking digital data is silly. New Zealand could solve this problem by simply making it illegal.
Headline: Supernovae May Not Be Standard Candles; Is Dark Energy All Wrong?
Summary: Does this mean dark energy may not be real, or that it may just be slightly weaker than we previously thought?
Articles: It is slightly weaker than we previously thought. Not significantly though.
This is a really good fair question. I thought about this because in my reply to the article, I cited this same example.
A private company paid a bunch of money to another private company and users got better video streaming performance.
So which private company paid which private company? In this case, Netflix paid Comcast. Isn't that... odd? Netflix paid Comcast even though Comcast did absolutely nothing?
So imagine if Comcast wasn't a monopoly. I can think of 3 possibilities: 1) Comcast would have upgraded their infrastructure. 2) Customers would have moved to another ISP who had more bandwidth. 3) Comcast would have paid Netflix to colocate their servers within Comcast's network, since it saves Comcast from having to upgrade their infrastructure.
Because Comcast is a monopoly, they profited from *not* upgrading their service. That's maddening! But that is what monopolies do: they profit from extorting other companies using their monpoly power, rather than profiting from providing a good product. So the net result is that Comcast customers don't have better bandwidth. So what happens when another content provider has bandwidth problems with Comcast customers? Perhaps the company will fold. Or perhaps they will do what Netflix did, continuing the ugliness.
Now here's a criticism of my argument: What did the FCC's network neutrality do to prevent this scenario? I'm not sure it actually helped. Can someone chime-in on that? What does the new regulation do for deals like this between ISPs and content providers? I'm not sure there is a solution here other than competition.
The article is full of colorful language about network neutrality advocates, but also some sound reasoning that is unfortunately based on technical misunderstandings or misinformation. Once you look past the mischaracterizations (it's a political piece, after all - you speak to your audience and insult everyone who disagrees with you before you even consider making a point!), it's actually not that bad. There are lots of items in it that I'd like to respond to, as if I could fix the author's misunderstandings, but I'll just pick a one:
The more good content that providers make available, the more consumers will demand access to sites and apps, and the more ISPs will invest in the infrastructure to facilitate delivery.
That's what we want, but that isn't what is happening. The ISPs have little economic incentive to invest in infrastructure since they are mostly monopolies. That's why Comcast chose, instead of upgrading their bandwidth when customers started watching Netflix, to pressure Netflix into co-locating servers within Comcast's network. They only could do that because they are a monopoly. Comcast customers could not choose to switch to another provider, and Netflix cannot choose to route around Comcast.
One would think that after 10 years of political teeth-gnashing, regulatory rule making, and relentless litigating, there would by now be a strong economic case for net neutrality—a clear record of harmful practices and agreements embodying the types of behavior that only regulation can pre-empt. But there isn't.
This sounds like someone citing their ignorance on a topic as evidence that something didn't happen. In general, the authors need to recognize that:
- ISPs are tied to cable/telecom monopolies.
- ISPs can't pick different "business models" without impacting individuals' free speech.
- We learned these lessons from what came before the internet.
- We've had real issues without Network Neutrality.
It will be interesting to see how "broken" the internet is in 10 years. Usually those predicting doom and gloom fade away. We shall see, eh?
The only way a new header is going to work is if you use http:/// for the first request, and then include a header that tells the browser it can pull the same pages over TLS, but without doing authenticity checks on the certificate.
That's what I meant. Someone further up the comment chain said that is how OE works. First it connects with HTTP, then when "data is submitted" (I took that to mean a forms submission) it uses the OE.
So, in trying to understand the intent here:
No, we created it to make it actually possible to do unauthenticated encryption with self-signed certificates on public websites.
We already have that capability, but as you say:
Currently, nobody uses self-signed certs because of the invalid cert warnings.
So that seems to confirm that yes, the purpose of this is to hide the cert warnings. Am I missing something?
Aside: I just learned about dh_anon, which actually does not even require a certificate. Interesting.
Once they received the names of account holders, the company would then have to prove copyright infringement had taken place.
So long as they have to prove the infringement took place, then I have no problem with this. If someone commits copyright infringement, and the copyright holder can go to court and prove it, then the legal system is working. But does it seem likely that they will file 4,726 unique court cases? They will instead send extortion letters, or do a big massive case, or sue the ISPs to recover the money, or something like that.
So we created this mechanism just to hide the certificate prompt? It seems like it would be better just to put text on the form that says "Hey, I used a self-signed certificate so ignore the message you see when you click submit" then just submit the form to an HTTP URL as usual. Alternatively, we could standardize on an HTML meta-attribute or HTTP header attribute that tells the browser to ignore the cert. No special browser feature required.
Surely I am missing something here.
How is this better than I'm unclear HTTPS with a self-signed cert? It seems like a convoluted way to suppress a certificate prompt.
Link to Original Source