FWIW, I tried ClojureDart a little while back, had a good time, but thought to myself, "I'll be back when they have a REPL working." At that time you guys were saying things in the Slack like, "We already have a working prototype behind closed doors, it just needs polish. We'll be ready to release it soon." It was very exciting.
That was... six months ago. :) So... I guess I'll keep waiting.
(a) Is six months a long time?
(b) And then they delivered successfully.
(c) Not seeing a problem.
I know, I have been beating on CLJD like I was its Daddy wrapping it in a reactive framework, despite their warning that there would be surprises. I had one problem that turned out to be a simple bug in CLJD.
I also follow their channel on the #clojurians Slack and see they are doing a profoundly deep job on the compiler. This means a robust product, not one that has developers forever looking over their shoulders at the language they are using.
Six months for that is nothing. Now send them eight dollars. jk. :)
It's my fault. And other active users. Tensegritics polled us on what we wanted first -- Tensegritics is neither Oracle nor Google -- and we all had a REPL in last place.
The one caveat I offered was "...but a REPL will be a selling point!" ROTFL
Seriously, when I want a REPL I hack the test code into "main" and comment out the UI launch. Then I edit and save and the output goes to my terminal nearby thanks to auto build/restart.
You posted this as a reply to cgrand saying they would need resources to go any faster. Yes it’s not ready yet so you’ll need to wait (or provide resources). Paraphrasing your memory of their prior time estimate on Slack seems a non sequitur - what is your intended point?
No cgrand didn’t say it’s coming soon, he said they’re working on it and donate to get it “sooner.” Is it possible you are having similar accuracy issues recalling what he said on Slack months ago?
ClojureDart co-author here. It happens in Dart too. Some changes are not compatible with the current application state. It may occur a bit more frequently because of Clojure being less stringent than dart about giving names to everything (which is tedious but definitely helps with hotreloading).
It’s also a matter of habit. We are just too used to English words even when French ones exist. Go try and read Principes d’Implantation (sic) de Scheme et Lisp (the original Lisp In Small Pieces): pure unadulterated French and, to me, a constant struggle as I have to translate expressions to English!
I don't know directly, but I've heard that there are special laws regarding fraud via fax. Even though fax has no technical protection, it may have legal ones, that might give the counterparty some recourse if things went bad.
In Germany, a fax is legally considered an original copy, a scan/print is not, despite a fax often being a scan that’s then transmitted via fax protocols. Law hasn’t caught up with technology yet in that area.
You also get a confirmation from the recipient when using fax.
All the while we actually have a pretty good law about digital signatures since basically forever, but ~nobody supports those. (and they missed the chance of using the new ID cards to establish them more widely, which was really stupid)
Dialup modems speak the protocol, or at least they used to, so it was possible to send or receive a fax without a physical copy of the document. Just by "printing" from word to the modem and entering a phone number. I remember writing an excel macro to iterate over a list of customers and send a personalized word document to them. (This was 20 years ago I think and not all of our customers had an email)
Sure, but that's still "a scanner attached to a modem." Nothing about a scanner implies that it must buffer the input, just like nothing about a printer implies that it buffers the output.
There are/were "line printers" doing "latch a character from the input line, print the character, unlatch" serial output (which were so common that Unix pipes are designed around the foibles of outputting to such devices.) Most POS thermal receipt printers are still line printers!
I don't know as much about scanners, but I can't imagine that the original (digital, attached to a computer) scanners weren't also "serial scanners"—i.e., rather than a 1D scan head with a long CCD strip that could latch an entire line at a time into a shift register, they would have had 2D scan-heads that would scan one pixel at a time, in a "read brightness, signal ready, wait for return line to unlatch" serial loop. No memory required, just terribly slow.
When the relevant laws were made, fax machines were purely analog devices, not a scanner attached to a modem. And once fax was legally privileged, it stuck around exactly because it was legally privileged - despite the change in technology.
> fax machines were purely analog devices, not a scanner attached to a modem
Why would an analog scanner not still be a scanner? I'd call whatever component that's in even the oldest fax machines "a scanner." Even if it is "enitrely analog" (continuous brightness intensity read, like a tape head or record-player stylus) you'd still call the process of converting light from a sensor passing over a document, into electricity, scanning, and you'd still call the component that does that "a scanner." Just like speakers and microphones are still "speakers" and "microphones" whether they're just transducers attached to wires, or have a whole ADC+USB/Bluetooth signal path leading out of them. Am I wrong?
Yes, in the same sense that an analog telephone is recording you by translating your voice into electricity. But, at least to me, if it is voice -> electricity on wire -> speaker, it feels much less like recording than saving a buffer of voice in memory, packetizing, and then sending, even if they are both just electricity on a wire.
Sounds like their document management system was tied to a fax line and they didn't want to bother upgrading. IT departments at banks have like, zero budget.
I read on NH yesterday (or perhaps the day before) that in the USA HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act 1996) carves our a special exemption to consider faxes ‘secure’.
If you pass a law stating you are a Triceratops, it would become 'true' in the legal sense... and since we are dealing with legality, it being declared 'secure' does matter
It depends on the threat model. If I need to prove to a court in the US, then I'm signing paper and faxing it. To do it differently would be more expensive to prove.
I'm talking about the technical sense. Where there is no encryption at all, anyone with a phone line splitter can listen in, and the machines are usually not in a secured area so anyone could just pick up the fax and walk away. Not secure at all.
I don’t think you need to argue that fax is not technically secure on HN. Pretty sure we are all on the same page there. What matters is legal precedent and existing policy in various countries.
It depends on what your threat model is. The attacks you're talking about are real, absolutely.
For the threat model of a physically local attacker with either the right timing (for grabbing an incoming fax) or the right knowledge (for the phone system equivalent of tcpdump), you're quite right that fax is insecure. Likewise for state sponsored adversaries or certain organized crime groups.
But if you just want to make it hard for people scanning the internet to see what juicy corporate espionage they can find and resell, without specifically targeting you, fax is probably less vulnerable to that threat model than, for example, an undermaintained email server. Likewise if you piss off script kiddies somewhere on the internet with botnets and exploit kits, your website is probably a bigger risk than your fax machine.
They're secure in the sense of being low-risk for active content shenanigans and a small surface area for vulnerabilities. Attacking a network through a .tiff of a fax is a lot harder than attacking it through an email, pdf, word doc, http session, etc.
Let me add for clarification to the parent commenter: In Germany you'll not only need to have at least a fixed amount of theoretical training and an exam about that, but also driving training in various conditions. Few hours on the Autobahn, few hours at night and obviously driving though the countryside and cities.
Sadly not. Either you live in a region where snow falls regularly and you learn driving on snow/ice right from the start or you will behave like most of us: Make a fool of yourself after the first five snowflakes have fallen.
I do not know about Germany but in Luxembourg you have to take a special course within 2 years of getting your licence.
This course is on a race track and you will learn how to deal with aquaplaning and controlled avoidance of obstacles amongst other things. They also force the car to lose control so that you can experience that (I believe you drive over a metal sheet that moves, causing the back to spin out).
Not quite snow/ice training but it gives you some experience in how to deal with situations where you lose control of your car.
Courses like this are not mandatory in Germany, but car clubs like the "ADAC" offer those for their members. They're still expensive (like 200 Euro for a day) and I'm not sure if insurance agencies give you benefits for taking part in those courses.
> "This scene on the other side is shown solely for presentation and was not used for identification". Why not show the actual footage of the experiment?
My understanding is that the video on the left (the one showing the other side of the wall) is just here to illustrate what's the wifi setup senses and was not used for identification as the whole point is to identify without (optically) seeing what's on the other side.
