Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:SSL? (Score 1) 84

by complete loony (#48454093) Attached to: Book Review: Bulletproof SSL and TLS

POODLE, BREACH, CRIME etc all require the attacker to control some bytes in the ssl stream in order to deduce other bytes that they shouldn't be able to see. POODLE requires the attacker to change the http url & form post body in order to force the alignment of bytes, BREACH and CRIME are gzip length attacks. Both require the attacker to control bytes in a http request in order to guess the contents of other bytes in the request that they wish to know, like a session cookie.

All of these are attacks on HTTP & SSL, not on SSL alone.

Comment: Re:"Two" times, not ten times (Score 3, Insightful) 195

by steelfood (#48447111) Attached to: Corning Reveals Gorilla Glass 4, Promises No More Broken IPhones

Actually, even the Wikpedia article you linked gives multiple definitions for toughness, depending on application. Which one is used here remains poorly specified and opens up the possibility of ambiguous marketing platitudes. Now, if they said shear strength was improved overall by a certain percentage, that would be information.

Comment: Re:Caring about news and politics instead of trivi (Score 1) 367

by steelfood (#48447081) Attached to: Blame America For Everything You Hate About "Internet Culture"

That was my first impression too. How snobby of the French to care about serious matters like politics and current events. How dare they not be as interested in cats and /b.

There certainly is a problem, and separately a snob problem even, but it certainly isn't with the French in TFS.

Comment: The problem with exponential growth... (Score 1) 418

by tyme (#48446919) Attached to: Alva Noe: Don't Worry About the Singularity, We Can't Even Copy an Amoeba

is the constants. If your process doubles in the measured quantity in 20 days then you have something that might be worth worrying about (assuming that it won't hit some other limit, so long as that limit isn't you), but if it doubles in 20 years you have some time to consider and prepare. Whenever I see talk about the singularity it seems like the growth people are talking about either has a very short doubling period (which it probably doesn't) or the growth is actually super-exponential (the doubling period itself is chchanging with time).

In either case, innumeracy will be our downfall before the singularity gets us.

Comment: Re:I bet Infosys and Tata are dancing in the stree (Score 1) 183

Congress just makes the rules. But they cannot enforce it. They can persuade the relevant Federal agencies (and Obama) to do so by various means, but that's part of the politics.

These are the checks and balances. And the things Obama has done are still within their bounds. As an example, Obama hasn't raised the H1B limitations because that's set in law by Congress.

Comment: Re:What's so special about Google? (Score 2) 320

by steelfood (#48438313) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Everyone does it. It's called protectionism, and no country is guilt-free. It's a matter of how smartly it's done. This move? Stupid. Picking a fight with Google (or even trash talking, which this really is) is a really dumb idea. Nothing's really going to come out of this, except for maybe a bit of egg on some world leader's face at a Google-hosted party. Toppling democratically-elected regimes in unstable regions? Brilliant. Chances of success are almost a hundred percent, and the trade benefits are tremendous. It's only called bullying if you're caught doing it and nobody's really looking that way anyway.

My point being, you shouldn't be so surprised political leaders are making lots of patriotic noise. It's what doesn't get into the papers that's the real eye-openers.

Comment: Re:In an unrelated news item... (Score 1) 320

by steelfood (#48438281) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Your numbers may very well be true, but the U.S. leads in per capita consumer spending. That means Americans spend more money on products per person than any other country (except the UAE, strangely enough). In contrast, the number for most of Western Europe is around 60% of the U.S.

This is why the U.S. is often considered a special market (consumer products-wise) separate from the rest of the world. The only other market that's considered special is China, but only because of its growth potential due to sheer population numbers.

Now, how much spending is on European products, nobody really knows. But the U.S. (and U.S. companies) does not need Europe to sustain businesses tied to consumer products.

GDP numbers tend to be more relevant for B2B and banks, so it would be stupid if IBM or even Microsoft pulled out of Europe. But Google? Their dollars are advertising dollars, and the ROI on marketing in Europe just doesn't have the same potential. Not that they would want to pull out, as it's lost revenue and certainly opens the door for competition. But to say that Europe is a bigger market for them than the U.S. is flat out wrong.

Comment: Re:House reps are always campaigning, have small d (Score 1) 156

by steelfood (#48437815) Attached to: Greenwald Advises Market-Based Solution To Mass Surveillance

Those days are long gone.

You really have to wonder whether "those days" were ever around in the first place.

Money always talks. The more money you have, the louder you can be. Even on the internet, which equalizes this a bit, money just goes into disinformation rather than information.

Comment: Re:My two cents... (Score 1) 514

by complete loony (#48415503) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

In Australia we forced the utility companies to buy any solar power you sent to the grid using a separate meter, at a fairly high rate to encourage adoption.

Those higher tariffs are now over. So now we pay around 30-40c kWh (AUD, from memory) for mains, and they only pay about 5c kWh for any solar power you provide. But at least you're better off if you can use that power yourself.

Comment: Re:This article is useless (Score 1) 91

by steelfood (#48407231) Attached to: Facebook Planning Office Version To Rival LinkedIn, Google

There's a reason for this.

There are only so many hours in a day, and only so many of them spent at work. Workplaces will eventually settle on the most efficient tools. These aren't going to be the most powerful tools or even the simplest to use, but the ones who give people the most bang for their buck.

For communications, there's e-mail, IM, and the phone. For document management, there (should be) CMS. For sharing company documents, there's the internal website. For socializing, there's the water cooler.

Where these tools fit in... well, they don't. It takes more effort ("active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture") to make them work than the benefits gained over using the aforementioned methods.

Social sites like Facebook work because the links between people are usually physically separated relative to the importance of the communication (the more important the communication, the farther the physical separation). The physical networks are wide and slow, so the digital version has a purpose by making the networks closer and faster. At work, the physical network is close and fast. There's no need for a digital replacement, especially a complex one.

Disclaimer: We also "use" Yammer at work, but the conent is asinine mostly (at least when it's not someone being passive aggressive).

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"