618 karma · joined April 6, 2012
This isn't something to emulate. People who only read the first few words of an email before replying make communication harder for everyone else. Sometimes things can't be accurately summed up in half a sentence.
They also cover treatment of civilians, medical units, and infrastructure. Amongst other things.
> The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty
Yes, they do.
The protections are not as extensive, but the conventions also cover any armed conflict within the territory of a contracting party, such as the Syrian Arab Republic. They also cover occupation of a contracting party's territory, whether armed or not.
> The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here.
The conventions don't make any exception for traitors. They certainly don't allow Syria to take an ISIS fighter prisoner and avoid their convention responsibilities by handing him over to the US.
The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that PoWs are allowed to communicate with the outside world, subject to militarily necessary censorship. If charged with a crime, they have the right to choose their legal representative.
Just because you were honorably discharged doesn't mean you're right. If you'd summarily executed prisoners, you'd have committed a war crime.
Wouldn't you want the keys on the computer that's going to use them? And then, wouldn't you want to make it hard to copy the unencrypted private keys?
(I'm assuming we're talking about SSH keys.)
OTOH, it could be neat to run an ssh agent in a key-holding qube and forward that to whatever qubes need to use your SSH keys, using `ssh-add -c` so that key use must be confirmed in the key-holding qube.
The judge granted an injunction prior to the trial proper, permitting HiQ to continue scraping LinkedIn in the lead up to the trial. He did this because HiQ credibly argued that if it couldn't scrape LinkedIn it would go out of business before the court had even determined whether what it was doing was legal. These sorts of injunctions are a procedural matter and quite normal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction has more.
Guys is gendered if you think it is. I've lightly offended groups of women in the past - well after Friends started! - by referring to them as "guys".
Once is a miscommunication. To continue to call them guys even after they've said they don't like being called guys would be indistinguishable from intentionally causing offence, especially considering the ready availability of other words that serve the same linguistic purpose.
Google's page isn't just about abusing "window.opener", it's generally about abusing JavaScript-accessible connections between windows/tabs. Additionally, the site it's in isn't about browser bugs, but bugs in Google's websites. Google knows these issues are fixable, but they consider them to be flaws in browsers rather than in their websites.
That's why Google says it's still easy to exploit the other vectors for the attack. A website can protect itself by clearing "window.opener", but similar attacks are possible that a website can't prevent. e.g. A window can't prevent the window that opened it from later forcing it to navigate to a different URL.
Even then, there is a risk of being surprised. If you open a page on the same site, you may expect that scripts on the opened page can't access the opening page: but because of CORS they can.
Here's a fiddle with a link to another fiddle that copies the contents of a password field from the first fiddle: https://jsfiddle.net/u6rmc49c/3/
In the example that Google's page links to they change it to a data: URI - which no longer works in Chrome - but they could just as easily change it from http://good.com/ to http://evil.com/ - which would still work in Chrome - and hope you don't notice.
Chrome does support rel=noopener, _and_ the "fairly good demonstration" that page links to doesn't work in Chrome any more.
According to Wikipedia:
> Linietsky stated in a presentation that the name Godot was chosen due to its relation to Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot, as it represents the never-ending wish of adding new features in the engine, which would get it closer to an exhaustive product, but never will.
Non-sequitar. If you used the GPL, you'd be doing so voluntarily, so you wouldn't be being "forced" to do anything.
> a great many of those projects are maintained only to the extent the author decides to do so
An issue that is even more pronounced with closed source software, where _all_ such projects are maintained only to the extent the author decides to do so.
Sadly, there are some programs which haven't preserved this interaction, such as Firefox.
What would a human bus driver have done in that situation?
It isn't enough to make an automated vehicle that meets the minimal legal requirements for interacting with other road users. Real drivers have to deal with the fact that other drivers often don't drive lawfully, or rationally: automated drivers have to do the same.
It'd be interesting to see research on how many laypersons understand which way around the "chain of authority" goes for domain names. I can easily imagine somebody not Internet savvy thinking that "facebook.hackable.org" was a legitimate Facebook domain. (And it doesn't help that some organizations spread their site over many domains that - even to a skilled user - are indistinguishable from phishing domains.)
It is unclear how a domain like that could be optimized to ensure a novice user understands that what they're looking at isn't Facebook, even though the domain starts with "facebook" and the page they're looking at looks exactly like Facebook's login page.
One general, slightly off-topic, notion: there should be a protocol whereby a password manager can ask facebook.com what sites are legitimately going to ask for your Facebook credentials - not entirely unlike SPF for passwords. Then even if you search for Facebook in your password manager, it should refuse to automatically provide the credentials to the site.
(More off-topic aside: Password managers should be properly integrated into all browsers. Knowing your passwords should be considered unusual, and actually choosing them yourself downright stupid.).
Counterpoint: hiding information from users is often a good thing. Especially when that means reducing the amount of information a user has to process to determine if a URL is legit.
The URL path, query and fragment are the private business of whatever authority controls the URL. If an end user has to consult the path, query or fragment to make a decision about whether the URL is okay, the website has got it wrong.
> imagine many tabs all with the same only-hostname in the address bar --- the constant feeling of "where am I, really?" made it very unpleasant and disorienting
If I tried to navigate tabs by full URL I'd already have that feeling. I can tell from the current URL that I'm replying to a post - but I can tell that from looking at the page itself, and the page title - but 15659459 doesn't tell me very much about what post I'm replying to. Certainly, if I have multiple comments open I don't remember which is why by their id. The same applies on a great many websites.
As far as I remember, the only websites where I do navigate by "hacking" the URL are ones I've made, or it's done for the purpose of deceiving people about what the URL leads to: e.g. changing the product name in an Amazon URL.
For keeping track of where you are, rather than displaying the full URL, I think it'd be better to move breadcrumbs into the browser chrome - https://i.imgur.com/d821tXu.png instead of https://i.imgur.com/UufKDoS.png
(Relatedly, I've no idea which parts of an Amazon URL are "safe" to share. A UI fix to the URL problem should also include the ability for Amazon to tell the browser how to make a safely shareable link.)
Literally the argument the article is making!
They didn't. It's recommended, but not required, to use a "non-realistic" colour, examples being yellow, blue, or gray.
So, the version that prints 1 is
func a() {
i := 0
defer func(){
fmt.Println(i)
}()
i++
return
}When I see
var x = await bar();
Also, the JS approach makes composing asynchronous operations simple:
var x = bar();
var y = bar();
return await x, await y;
It's unclear (to me) how that would be done in Lua without complicating the API.
timer.setTimeout doesn't "simulate" a delayed callback - that's what it actually is.
An example that actually uses coroutines directly rather than wrapping them up might be more convincing.
Because the compiler's available at run-time, queries can be compiled into efficient kernels that can run in parallel over multi-gigabyte arrays orders of magnitude faster than MySQL or Postgres on the same hardware.
Without Julia, I would have had to find some other way to compile queries into machine code at run-time, which for me would have ruled out all the languages you listed. In practical terms I would have abandoned the project.
It isn't. It's an article called "68 Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet", out of many thousands of articles on the site. Naturally, that article will be about China: it is typical for an article to cover a specific topic.
One should not expect all articles a newspaper publishes to cover all criticisms of the government of the country in which that newspaper is incorporated. That's unreasonable.
> Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects.
A great many people. The New York Times, for example.
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/surveillance-of-citize...
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/foreign-intelligence-s...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/technology/aclu-border-pa...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforceme...
The techniques Welles developed for Kane were innovative at the time, but are now mundane or clichéd. In terms of writing, framing, lighting, directing, editing, scoring, it was unparalleled.
It's not the best movie in the conventional sense, and maybe not even a particularly good one - I found that the story itself failed to grip me - but it is technically brilliant, and one of the most significant movies in terms of its influence on the art of film-making.
I don't remember the source, but there's a quote to the effect of "I don't think much of Shakespeare's plays, they're just one cliché after another".
Get is simpler precisely because it hides the complexity.
> Or maybe "Why aren't you using your language's library methods to loop over that list?"
What makes those methods not subject to the "hiding complexity" objection?
> Why don’t they go to trial without the files allegedly stored on the encrypted devices? It comes down to reasonable doubt.
If there is genuinely reasonable doubt that the disk contains CP, then it cannot be a foregone conclusion that the disk contains CP.
If it is a foregone conclusion that the disk contains CP, then the judge should simply instruct the jury to that effect. The jury might disagree, but that's why we have juries: so that the justice system doesn't imprison people for years without independent oversight.
Not under any system of ethics I'm familiar with. Indeed, I would imagine that a big part of most ethical systems is about _not_ abusing your power.
For example, most people would consider it unethical for a company to manipulate, bribe, intimidate, and discredit people in order to suppress evidence of the harmful nature of that company's products.
> Is it wrong to hire the best attorney for your defense just because they may be friends with the judge
Are we talking about the godfather to the judge's child, or somebody who has coffee with him a few times a month?
If it's the former, any decent judge would recuse himself - and the other attorney would rightly kick up a fuss if he didn't.
> Also, how can you expect police and others to be unbiased when this device has probably helped them or saved their own life at some point. Are they supposed to ignore the fact that this is a critical tool in their belt?
No. But, an ethical person would weigh the benefits Tazers offer against the risks they introduce: and it's hard to do that when Tazer systematically suppress evidence of those risks.
The question is whether there could be reasonable doubt that, given there is CP on an account, it was put there by the account owner.
What we don't know is what proportion of Dropbox accounts that contain CP had that CP planted by a hacker. If a significant enough proportion of CP on Dropbox was not put there by the account owner, it's reasonable to at least consider the possibility.
It doesn't have to be an attempt to frame the account owner: somebody who wants to exchange CP with other people might well use a hacked Dropbox account to do that, in an attempt to cloak their identities.