hwh

Maybe not with open identity, but they surely do discuss. There are lots of mostly non-commercial forums that are full of people discussing their "turn-ons". In most cases I encountered, in a very civilized fashion. Discussions are more technical than one might expect, especially compared to "real-life" discussions about turn-ons, which often end in shame, giggling or bragging. A look at Amazon or other commercial platforms and the customer reviews shows about the same. As long as people aren't forced to show their full name, they are just fine about discussing such matters.

I wish it was easier to convert "standard" dynamic web pages into static HTML easier. There's one or two Wordpress sites I'd really like to get rid of updating over and over again (which is still less work than actually reading mostly meaningless Changelogs and making a decision if there are security issues that actually apply to me). Probably, my solution to this problem will be "wget -r", plus a bit of sanitizing.

As you say yourself, there is no formal investigation. So there is no point to the "learning" you are suggesting. Indeed, we have had recent reforms. And if you oppose them, please do not hide it behind snide remarks. Those reforms, in essence, were as follows: Before the reforms, punishable sexual misconduct was given only in the case the victim opposed it actively. Actively meaning not words, but actual corporal, physical defense actions. What is new after the reforms, is that the victim now has to utter a recognizable will to not suffer the actions.

As we are talking about penal laws, it is still needed to establish proof of this recognizable will.

About reputation: penal laws do not have to do with that. Again, as you state, this can be seen in this case where there is no formal investigation.

just use random numbers.

This is meant more seriously than it might sound. But in the field of "persistent identifiers", there's a notion that languages changes over time (a common example being the word "gay"), so introducing meaning into identification schemes might not be a good idea.

On the other hand, "extension" is just an interpretation.

Nice explanation! I'd also paint it that way and thought this was because bikes on advertisement materials are usually shown that way around.

Yes, "justice" is a marketing term. (That is indeed quite often the case when it is offered, as opposed to when it is seeked for.)

I think the best reference would be the actual (main) spec since the grammar spec says it is kind of a "superset" of the actual specification, i.e. not always strict enough. Identifiers are specified here: https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/syndata.html#va... (two hyphens at the start are also not allowed, in contrary to the "SO answer" cited).

"if you have the means to inject arbitrary packets, chances are you also have the means to read them" - this is not true in some (most?) settings. Current mode of operation of the Internet as we know it will allow incoming traffic allow to claim to stem from any public IP address. It's up to the interconnecting parties to ensure that no forged source IP adresses are used on packets leaving their network towards others, but that's all there is at the moment. See http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/addressing-challenge-ip-s...

That's because it was written before Turkey and Greece were part of the treaty. See Note 1 in your link at the bottom, which refers to the "Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey": http://www.nato.int/cps/de/natohq/official_texts_17245.htm - which modifies Article 6 of the original treaty. (to "For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; [...]")

On neither side, German soldiers had direct access to a nuclear arsenal, however. There were missile bases in West Germany alright, under control of American forces. And there were mobile soviet bases in the eastern part, under control of Russian forces. Only a small subset of german soldiers had training in the operation of nuclear weapons, mainly parts of the air force (plans were that nuclear bombs would have been given to them in the case of a conflict).

This reminds me of my first mention in a Linux kernel commit message: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.... It's the fix for a bug I found in the kernel. This sounds quite boring, but the fun part is the background story: Antivirus vendor X (actually forgot which one) bragged about a new, dangerous virus that can spread on Windows as well as Linux platforms. Joe Barr reported on that for NewsForge, claiming that the Virus didn't work at all (on Linux). I jumped in and tested too, and found that it wouldn't work (meaning: infect other binaries) on newer kernels since there was an actual bug in the kernel preventing it from doing so.

Why I'm reciting that story is this: It is perfectly fine for a binary to write executable code to other files. Your typical compiler does. The kernel isn't there to prevent that. The kernel is supposed to prevent it if you configure a security policy that forbids it - starting with things as simple as file ownership and permissions. This is pretty much clear for anyone who knows some things about what the computer does. For people who only have some fuzzy ideas, fixing the Linux kernel to make (in this case) a virus work again sounded a bit weird.

Well, ransomware is in the news these days because of the raid in the Netherlands, and here there's another "security specialist" trying to use this for its PR. But again there is nothing that indicates that this is all about standard functionality. Yes, you can encrypt all your own files on a typical machine. Yes, a piece of software can do it for you. Yes, you can run such software. And if you're careless and follow orders easily, someone else might give you the software to do it.

Police does use the EU variant for the plates, though. You're right, of course they could go with FE Schrift on their old (non-reflective, non-EU) plates. That would, however, be a new combination that would match neither the new civil plates nor the old ones.

I guess they still have 1 million plates in some storage facility. Nah, jokes aside: what they actually do is to not only legally, but practically issue their own plates, which would include stamping them. Also, they don't use the reflective background white. So not only they don't need it, they also have reasons to continue with the old variant. (And actually, they might indeed have a huge stock of them. Military supplies are often aquired at ridiculous numbers.)

(PS: Sorry, auto-correct inserted a typo, just fixed)

Platform is a BSD, with no fancy-pants "ps", I guess.

Arguably, the FFI gives easier access to stuff (TM) than Perl would allow. C would be easier if the aim was clear and you can just write the code down (well, string handling is probably easier in Lua, and there's the memory handling with GC). When the way there is what drives you instead, Lua(JIT) is nice. Sprinkle in some print here and there, try this and that without compiling stuff (though that is the smallest gain, I think)...

tonumber() is LuaJITs cast for pointers to integers. There are some arguments for it to stay.

To make it clear: that song is not really focused on welcoming refugees (though the band playing it really supports that cause, too). That song is very specifically targeted at pointing towards the haters and criticizing their hate.

There are times when a step back is the mandatory step to get a new perspective on things. Just sayin'.

Internet network flows take mysterious ways. Well, not really, but it is difficult and there are szenarios where carriers would be different for inbound/outbound traffic to a certain destination. Thus, I don't think the premise that routers should know if the source of a packet is valid really holds true.

In the specs in the section "Feature deprecation" (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specificat...) Microsoft mentions that removal and that eligible Windows versions will get a free DVD player app after the Upgrade.

There is no such thing as a "Beamtenbeleidigung" in Germany, though it is a quite common myth. People in office enjoy no special rights in that regard. There is a difference, though, in the law process. Insults as a criminal offense need a personal demand for a penalty to warrant persecution by the state. For people in office, this can be replaced by a substitution demand by the state, supposedly to warrant respect for office in general.

Then, there isn't a catalogue for insults and their penalty. That's because criminal law in Germany is driven by the idea that the thing to be penalised is the individual guilt, rather than an objective action. This has a lot of consequences, one of them being that your action is weighted by what you wanted when doing the potentially criminal action, i.e. the intent.

Mike Pall has emphasized on various occasions that he believes that sandboxing Lua (while discussing LuaJIT issues, but refering to Lua in general) is reasonably possible only by considering the whole (OS) process as the sandbox: "The only reasonably safe way to handle untrusted Lua scripts is to isolate them in a process context and to make use of per-process quotas/limits provided by the operating system." (http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2011-02/msg01106.html) - there were other occasions. However, I am not aware of a bytecode related discussion in this regard. And yes, it uses different bytecode - and a different intermediate representation.

I'm not sure if it can be said that there was a bug in IPSec/NAT-T. Caused by IPSec/NAT-T, maybe. But by documented and specified behaviour. As for aes-ni-intel (the module/implementation), I'm also not sure. Maybe that would have to be attributed to Xen - for being a bit careless. Agreedly an interesting read!

Hm, had you said 1978, I would have gotten the reference (Spoiler: TeX, though maybe not really 2-column at the time?). Did you have something specific in mind when writing 1979?

That really does not sound like a quality issue at all. Or do they encourage providing power via their PoE-like solution over such long distances? Ethernet is specified for 100 meters, I think, but proprietary powering over the same cable not necessarily so.

As a right click reveals https://code.google.com/p/shellinabox/ being in use, my guess is on real "UNIX" commands.

It is a nice little hacking project. However, it is not built on top of the Kernel (which would be possible using e.g. something like ljsyscall).

A look over at LuaJIT and its FFI would probably also be nice in the context of this project.

However, it is probably deemed to be a little pet project forever. It does away with about everything that Android provides, including the developer APIs that are often implemented in a proprietary way the closer you get to the driver layer.

The "Android without cumbersome Java and NDK" (from another comment) is - arguably - not an Android at all. It is a Linux kernel and the glibc, with lots of the hardware not accessible.

I've been going through a remotely similar experience when working on and with the Koreader project (http://github.com/koreader/koreader, a document/ebook reader software aimed at e-ink devices, which often come with not much beside the kernel and glibc, plus a framebuffer to play on) and it takes some major design effort to create a proper event/GUI framework. Which we did in the Koreader project using Lua, too - it's just so nice a Language to prototype with. For Android - a platform we support for devices - we went via NDK (only a small wrapper, https://github.com/koreader/android-luajit-launcher). Though we have an SDL (1&2) backend, too, in addition to a purely Kernel framebuffer/input API oriented backend. Maybe worth a look, though also maybe an overwhelming amount of code to begin with.

I can trigger Google's Captcha simply by using Chrome's Incognito Mode plus a SSH-based SOCKS proxy. No automation at all. Which is probably against the "normal usage profile" build for data Google gets from me despite Incognito Mode. Well, for starters, dropping Cookies all the time is probably an indicator. Not sure if they can somehow see my SOCKS tunnel - I hope they can't, but am not basing my security on that.

Reading - especially reading concise articles on a focused problem domain, and on the other hand, reading actual code. I think over the years I've gotten a sense for recognizing good, readable code.

I've been working in a call center (tech support for a pay TV company) for two years - and it wasn't hell to work there. It became later, I heard, months and years after I had left (no causal connection). The reason is plain simple: The amount of money that customer relations should cost.

When I was working in said call center, it was policy that customers should have a fulfilling experience if at all possible. We were allowed to make and schedule call-backs and these were actually done. We were small case-managers, honest ones, as our possibilities were quite limited - as in most situations with first-level support. There was no "maximum time" rules. No high-score lists for the number of requests handled per hour.

Policy changed later. A "2 minute" rule was established. Feedback talks by team leaders were set up where it wasn't strictly followed. High-score like lists were put up. Tech support was encouraged to sell stuff, like bigger contracts - and the "top ten" scorers on the contract-offer list got rewarded.