Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Pros and Cons (Score 1) 52

It's quite simple:

Neither HTTP, nor HTTPS with an untrusted certificate, are secure.

However, you don't expect HTTP to be secure. You do expect HTTPS to be secure. That's what the 'S' stands for.

Therefore, if a self signed certificate is used, and you haven't added your authority to your browser, the browser will warn you that something you expect to be secure isn't necessarily, and prompts you to check that you are, indeed, using the right certificate, and someone isn't intercepting your communications.

Every browser in the world allows you to add your own CA so you can use self-signed certificates without further prompting. If you've chosen not to, it's fairly reasonable for them to say "Wait, this guy has explicitly asked for a secure connection, but I have no way of verifying this connection is secure: I better say what I know and ask for further instructions."

Comment: Re:Price of commercials (Score 2) 72

by squiggleslash (#48271745) Attached to: A Mixed Review For CBS's "All Access" Online Video Streaming

$20 per channel? Seems improbable, as HBO (and other ad free subscription networks) charges much less than that for a bundle of channels featuring original content. And while I hesitate to mention the BBC, given differences in salaries and other overheads US vs UK TV production, that provides, what, four TV channels (or is it five now? I've been out of the UK for a while), a similar number of radio channels, all with wide regional variations, and a symphony orchestra, for approximately $250 a year.

Even if you meant "For their entire cable service", nobody watches all the cable channels, and nobody would buy a service intended to replace all the cable channels they currently watch. In addition, your cable bill is already significantly infrastructure heavy. We're talking here about you paying for the infrastructure seperately. Cable TV bill replaced by Internet bill, plus channel subscription bill. You may, over all, pay nearly $20 extra per month with this arrangement, but you're getting far more anyway.

Comment: Re:For Starters (Score 1) 317

by squiggleslash (#48244599) Attached to: What Will It Take To Make Automated Vehicles Legal In the US?

Because driving fucking sucks? Is that seriously not a good enough reason?

"What did you do today dear?"

"Oh, I guided a fast moving metal box between two painted lines on some tarmac, during which time if I made any errors I was likely to KILL SOMEBODY which may at best have been ME, so I had to concentrate on that for thirty minutes. Then I did some work. Then I spent another thirty minutes of my life that I'll never get back guiding the metal box back home."

Yeah, that sure sounds like a good use of my time. Great idea, surburbanism imposing assholes, use building codes and zoning to destroy downtowns across the country and force everyone out of cities, so that homes and businesses that serve homes and, well, pretty much any destination you're likely to need to go to, needs a fucking car ride to get there.

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 2, Interesting) 582

It is a threat to humanity. AI these days is used to create "automatic" music playlists, to "customize" query results helpfully omitting everything you were actually looking for, etc. More than one time I've wanted to throw the f---ing computer out the window as a helpful AI bot has prevented me from getting done what I needed to do.

Can you imagine how many people will get killed by defenestrated computers and smartphones if this trend gets worse?

Comment: Re:IBM no longer a tech company? (Score 1) 275

by squiggleslash (#48239759) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

Yes, yes, they can. As long as the company over all remains profitable (and Amazon is usually profitable - albeit not dramatically, but its share price is based largely on expected growth rather than EPS anyway) then it can wave away losses from loss making departments as long as those losses are (1) contained, (2) easily reversed, and (3) worth doing if they in the business's long term interest.

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 350

by squiggleslash (#48234183) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

No idea. My guess is as all Mac OS X versions are "upgrades" they'd have to either figure out a fair market price for the operating system, or go back to the clone era (the last time Mac OS was sold), and add to the cost of a licensed clone license the lowest cost upgrade chain to get to the current version of the OS.

I don't know if someone legally upgrade right to Yosemite (assuming suitable hardware upgrades and patches) from Mac OS 8 in the same way as they could Jaguar, assuming they can then Mac OS X can cost the same as an original gray box license.

Or, like I said, the fair market value, but that's harder to quantify. The best I can imagine is getting in an independent third party to do the evaluation of what value OS X has.

Like I said though, Apple at least has control over the retail chain, so they could sidestep quite a bit of this by just requiring the EULA be agreed at the time of sale.

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 2) 350

by squiggleslash (#48231143) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

If I'm reading this correctly, the logic is that he can demand a refund if using Mac OS means agreeing to a contract post-sale. It has little or nothing to do with third party PCs.

So, technically, Apple could be forced to determine a refund amount to give to people who buy a Mac without wanting to run Mac OS on it given you need to agree to the EULA when you turn on the machine for the first time. But they can also sidestep it in the majority of cases by using the control they have over the Mac sales chain to force sellers of Macs (including the Apple Store itself) to have the buyer accept the EULA at the time of purchase.

Comment: Re:Wow (Score 0) 275

by squiggleslash (#48228575) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

Yeah, we all forget that Microsoft peaked in 1982 and has subsequently been losing money ever since. You should see how much money they lost when they took advantage of the PC's success to bundle Windows with MS DOS.

It's a wonder they didn't go bankrupt in 1995.

(Yes, Microsoft was moderately successful prior to the 1990s. In the 1990s though they both used their high marketshare to establish an actual monopoly, squeezing out competitors like DR, and then used their monopoly to strangle potential future threats, such as Netscape. It wasn't pretty but it was highly profitable, especially the first part.)

Comment: Re:IBM no longer a tech company? (Score 5, Insightful) 275

by squiggleslash (#48228531) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

Only because they're trying to corner the market. And yes, I'm aware they kind of invented the type of cloud system that they are, but Bezos has been explicit from the beginning that he doesn't want competitors, and he'd rather see a few years of losses with the service underpriced than have a small share of the market.

I personally wouldn't invest in Amazon. That said, overall the company seems sustainable, it can afford to make losses like the one last quarter in part because it can easily reverse those losses if it ever becomes a serious problem. They're playing the "very long" game, everything they do seems to be aimed at ensuring they're a significant player 50 years from now. To me, that's absurd, you can't predict the future like that, but, hey, if they want to try - with other investor's money - then more power to them, it's that kind of attitude that moves us forward - usually.

Comment: Re:Those bastards? (Score 1) 117

Counterpoint: They invented FAT, which is where significant amounts of the royalties are coming from.
Counter-counterpoint: If they invented FAT, and Android Phones are feeling obliged to support it, they should probably be paying Android phone manufacturers $20 per unit...

(OTOH, FAT was a significant improvement on the CP/M file system, its biggest rival at that point, so there's that. Still, it says a lot that the actual FAT related patents they're collecting Android revenue on are actually for hacks to get around some of FAT's most stupid LIMITATI.ONS)

Comment: Re:Free aggregation? A problem? (Score 1) 95

by squiggleslash (#48220331) Attached to: German Publishers Capitulate, Let Google Post News Snippets

Actually, they wanted their work featured on Google News and get paid for it.

I know. Why do you think they want to be compensated for it, if, as the original poster argued, the mere presence of their work in search results is positive compared to search results existing where they're not present?

Their problem is the existence of search results to begin with. They want compensation from the fact they have to exist in an environment that's actively hostile towards the way they're structured, and they don't see an easy way to adapt to that environment.

Comment: Re:Free aggregation? A problem? (Score 5, Insightful) 95

by squiggleslash (#48215447) Attached to: German Publishers Capitulate, Let Google Post News Snippets

20 years ago, you woke up in the morning, heard a "phhhpmp" at the front door, went over, saw the newspaper that you pay to get delivered every morning on your carpet under the letterbox, would grab it, take it to the table, make yourself breakfast, and then read. You'd read news from that newsppaer. That newspaper would take on the honored (or not so honored in some paper's cases) role and responsibility of guiding you through what's happening in the world. To that paper, that position was a relationship to be developed, nurtured, built upon. Your loyal readers would come back day after day, they'd actually subscribe.

Today, you visit a website on your tablet, phone, or PC, usually multiple times a day. Britney Spears' nosejob is a click away from your Twitter stream to the CNN website. An email comes in, and you, on the recommendation of your friend, reading a Huffington Post article about cats. Then you get another email from your mother, and you're on reading about the seven fruits that might stop you getting cancer. Oh, and a person walks by your desk, and says "Did you hear? OMG you didn't? It's everywhere, terrorists just attacked the Dallas book depository, hundreds dead!", and where do you go?

Well, Google, You go to Google. You enter "dallas", and you already have a choice of articles to read, but you click on "More news about Dallas" and there are 50,000 breaking news articles about the incident at the book depository, including articles from news organizations you've never heard of, that are local to Dallas, whose views and coverage you'll respect for this one story... and then never visit again.

At no point have you ever said "You know, I'm going to get my news from the St Olaf Bugle, I'm looking forward to reading it tomorrow."

That is what they're afraid of. That's why several publishers are getting out of the newspaper business altogether, it's why Rupert Murdoch keeps doing stupid things like buying social media networks and starting enewspapers for tablets, and it's why German newspapers are not overly enthusiastic about having their work featured on Google News.

If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, then a consensus forecast is a camel's behind. -- Edgar R. Fiedler