jwfxpr

> Part of the problem is that in each of these categories, a single vendor often holds over 50% market share. As soon as a bug in one of those allow a RCE, that means millions of users at risk. ... > Species avoid extinction from viruses thanks to diversity. Software users that want to stay safe should consider using the less popular alternatives.

This point is badly under-discussed whenever this AV debate comes up.

Yeah, the variety of vendors, products, and methods in the third-party AV arena make production less predictable for software developers. That's the point. It makes it exactly as unpredictable for attackers.

Should AV vendors work harder to make their software easier to develop around? Arguably, yes. Security through obscurity is no security at all. But that should be the target of the argument, not the homogenization of security systems. I don't care how big or small the Defender attack surface is if every single desktop computer in the world has the exact same attack surface.

France has removed those restrictions, since 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography_law#France

This is essentially the case right now with TSA key designs available with little trouble online.

https://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-lugg...

I can't take the credit, I'm merely a finder, not the author :)

For anyone else trying to download the NixOS ISO from the website, they don't offer torrent downloads and the connection keeps dropping (for me, at least), I eventually got an intact copy.

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:071B7CBA20B94E5FDC4DAD397DE98D3A05276536

SHA-256 can be verified from https://nixos.org/nixos/download.html

The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms.

> and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.

I believe the author specifically calls out this document themselves, and emphasises the phrase above, as being the problematic portion. And while canonical does also say "For further information, please contact us (as set out below)", they have not clarified this concern despite being contacted and asked.

You could, though the attack surface on a laptop is arguably much larger than that on an iPod. And considering most security-conscious users are unlikely to use a classical cellular phone call for a sensitive conversation, it's actually pretty comparable to a phone, considering your hotspot can be as dumb as you like. An iPod + a prepaid portable hotspot is a damn sight more usable on the go than a laptop.

Baseband concerns are legitimate. A good tinfoil hat approach is to use an iPod touch running an end-to-end encrypted messaging/calling app of your choice, connected to a secure hotspot. Cuts out most baseband vulnerabilities (since your data is encrypted before touching any hardware or software connected to a potentially compromised baseband).

All other concerns raised elsewhere here still apply, but the baseband threat is mitigated. Worth it...? Check that threat model again.

The United States still uses Imperial measurements and Fahrenheit, and the NYT publishes an article arguing for an unnecessary, human-unfriendly re-standardisation of time zone(s)...?

Mmhmmm. The whole world's gonna take THAT idea seriously.

>Imagine sharing a glass of wine with your romantic partner, and she effortlessly lets you know that your dinner table reservation is ready. As though the maitre’d just whispered it in her ear.

'Imagine sharing a glass of wine with your romantic partner, and she still has a bright white AirPod in her ear. Her eyes flick slightly to the left every now and then as her attention wanders from you, as you try to discuss how you might not be able to take all the leave you'd hoped in summer, jeopardizing the plans you two had made to try to get some much-needed time alone together out of the city. You excuse yourself, step away from the table, and say "Hey Siri, text my girlfriend, Jennifer comma if you want to take this conversation seriously you'll find me sleeping in the spare room full stop enjoy your fucking wine full stop."'

I get the point the OP is trying to make, but he seems to have confused AirPods with bone induction.

First line of the abstract:

>We present the first experimental evidence, supported by theory and simulation, of spatiotemporal optical vortices (STOVs).

The experimental setup is diagrammed and explained in part III.A of the paper:

>In order to experimentally confirm the existence of STOVs, we image the spatiospectral phase and intensity profiles of femtosecond laser pulses midflight during their precollapse and postcollapse evolution in air.

Appendix A gives the experimental setup in enough detail for it to be reproduced in a lab with the correct equipment.

From the article:

>The rotation around an optical vortex does not concern the direction of the oscillating electric field (polarization), but rather its phase [1]. For example, the maximum of the field might initially be located just above the central axis of a light beam, and then a short time later it’s to the right of the axis, then below. This rotating phase gives the light an orbital angular momentum that can cause a charged particle within the beam to rotate.

So no matter or energy is traveling or transmitting faster than light; a property of the system can be observed to change location faster than the speed of light half of the time. Properties of an object can _change_ at a rate faster than light could propagate in a vacuum, as long as they don't carry information.

Imagine you are shining an incredibly powerful flashlight at the dark surface of the moon. You cover the light with your hand, and then uncover it again. An observer could record the edge of the shadow moving faster than light, but this doesn't mean any physical laws have been broken. No information, energy, or mass has moved faster than light.

Additional coverage here: http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-new-s...