Oops, missed a "print" in there, but you get the point.
This also affects other scripting languages executed via CGI if the code spawns a shell, e.g.:
It doesn't necessarily affect scripting languages executed via other means, e.g. mod_*
like a smack in the face to loyal Apple consumers.
I do believe that's called an iSmack.
A "zero-knowledge" service provider (allegedly) has no access to most of the digital assets stored by their service (e.g. LastPass, SpiderOak, etc.). They store encrypted blobs of data on your behalf, and send you these encrypted blobs at your request. Your PC (and not their servers) then decrypts this data using your password (of which the service provider has no knowledge).
I scanned through the bill, and it doesn't seem to acknowledge that such services exist. It doesn't even acknowledge that passwords themselves may not be retrievable, and instead groups passwords into the same category as other "digital assets."
Now IANAL, and it's entirely possible that some other bit of language in the bill or in a service provider's ToS could help to alleviate this, but if I ran such a service, I'd be a bit concerned....
When a provider needs to decide on it's next 100,000 "free" routers to provide to new customers, it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise when "cost-effectiveness" turns out to be its first priority. So I'm all for removing as much functionality as possible from any ISP-provider CPE; no wireless, just simple bridging.
But I really must respectfully disagree when it comes to separating out the wireless from the NAT box.
From a security point of view, having two manufacturers and two devices where one would suffice increases the attack surface -- it increases the likelihood that you have a security-related bug somewhere.
It increases the management burden -- now you have twice the number of devices whose firmware you have to keep up to date (if you're security conscience).
It doesn't scale well if you want more than one extra guest SSID or VLAN - sure you could attach a USB hub and half a dozen usb nics, or buy a VLAN-capable smart switch, but do you really want 3 Wi-Fi boxes, 3 unmanaged switches, and one router when just one Wi-Fi router would have worked fine?
There are definitely some advantages to separate wireless boxes. You can run guest SSIDs on different frequencies than your trusted SSID for example for better spectral efficiency. There are also cases where it's more convenient to have a NAT box near the CPE, and a separate Wi-Fi box centrally located. However in the average home setting, a single Wi-Fi/NAT box from a manufacturer with a decent track record is more practical.
I own an RB2011 at home too, and I've used both it and other RouterOS-based products professionally, and although they're not perfect, I can certainly recommend them for many cases. Here are a couple of random thoughts off the top of my head:
- New major firmware versions (once every couple of years) are always buggy, avoid. That said, they're pretty good about releasing regular bug fixes, and they continue to support older routers for quite a while (the 500 series, released in 2006ish, is still supported on their latest firmware for example).
- They can't seem to get a good OpenVPN implementation, which is a common complaint (but they have a lot of other styles of VPN which generally work well).
- They use some open source software (e.g. it's Linux kernel based), but they only release the bare minimum required source code. This is definitely not an open tinker-and-recompile OS.
- It does support virtualization, so you can run e.g. OpenWRT as a guest of RouterOS (yup, your router can have a router). You can also replace RouterOS with OpenWRT without worry of brickage. I haven't done either in a while, so I'm making no claims of either being easy or stable, but it can be done, and reverting back is easy.
- It's really more business-oriented than consumer-oriented. That means its configuration is very flexible, but also rather complex unless you're used to configuring non-web-based routers.
- Despite being complex, I find the configuration quite logical. It has no fewer than 4 different configuration interfaces (Web, CLI, Windows-based client app, and an API for automation). All present pretty much the same set of options in similar hierarchical arangements.
- The documentation is much better than it once was, for most uses it's quite good.
- The support community (via forum) is pretty good. Occasionally one of the Mikrotik staff will be a bit rude/condescending, but for the most part they're friendly (as are other posters).
A quirk of US copyright law kept 10 stories out of the public domain, on the basis that these stories where continuously developed. In his ruling Judge Castillo opined that only the "story elements" in the short stories published after 1923 were protected and that everything else in the Holmes canon was "free for public use" — including the characters of Holmes and Watson.
Holmes scholar Leslie Klinger, who challenged the estate, celebrated the ruling.
"Sherlock Holmes belongs to the world," Mr Klinger said in a statement posted on his Free Sherlock website.
IANAL, but the ruling of Judge Castillo that "adopting Conan Doyle's position would be to extend impermissibly the copyright of certain character elements of Holmes and Watson beyond their statutory period," is surely going to have implications across US copyright law. Mark Twain must be twisting and writhing in his grave."
Link to Original Source
The reason they proposed this is that aliens may not generate as much radio energy as their technology improves, given that on Earth we bleed less radio energy into space as we have moved to fiber optics."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Everyone who has a favorite adventure game is sure to point out that theirs isn't mentioned (for me, it was: Full Throttle (barely mentioned), Dreamfall, and more recently, Machinarium).
However, overall, this is simply a superb article. It touches on all the bases, is exceptionally well written, and really makes me yearn to play a new adventure game (come on Ragnar... you know you want to work on that sequel....)
I hope that anyone who has (or has ever had) even the most flighting interest in adventure games reads this article.
I disagree with the assumption that it's "just as easy". In some languages, it's definitely easier to write bad code. PHP is such an example. C/C++ is another one. In PHP it comes with the retardedness of the language. In C/C++ it comes with the freedom.
A good example for a language that has certain things in place to prevent bad coding, is Haskell. Type problems in running code are (except for the external input reader) simply impossible.