Slashdot Mirror

they will pick convenience over security
And what would be an example for that?

Anyone who's ever used a ChromeOS device. Especially the public school students, who have a choice between:

1. Do all of your school work, especially those opinion pieces, on a device that will track and upload everything you do to the world's biggest data broker just because it makes the IT staff's jobs easier, and has less of a financial TCO for the school system.

OR

2. Automatically fail every assignment you'll ever get and spend most of your afternoons in detention, let alone your parent's punishment, for at least 12+ years.

The world's privacy and security wasn't given away, so much as taken away by the laziness and penny pinching of others.

Why should convenience be automatically insecure?

Because it's the polar opposite of security. Convenience means 1. a quality or situation that makes something easy or useful for someone by reducing the amount of work or time required to do something

To contrast, Security means 5. precautions taken to guard against crime, attack, sabotage, espionage, etc.

Emphasis mine.

You can't reduce the amount of precautions taken without making something less secure.

Further, you don't even have convenience when the people making the thing say "No, you can't do that." There's nothing less convenient than no ability at all. A criticism that ChromeOS in particular takes in stride.

Additionally, you have no security as Google decides for you what will be considered "trusted" / "secure". You have no input into that equation, and you can't even review much less revoke what code runs or doesn't run on the device. It's effectively a machine owned and operated by Google, you just so happen to be using it, at their will. They could just as easily revoke your access by terminating your Google Account. An act made more likely with the passing of crap legislation like SESTA, and the kinds of ToS changes that some others have made in preperation.

The current state of affairs is crap, but never assume that convenience is "secure". For every bit of convenience you get / have forced on you, you give up / lose some security. Often in ways you might not think about at the time, and may not be able to mend later.

You seem to think the phrase means you ARE an autopilot, and thus are not paying attention

Whether it's meant metaphorically or not, if you're "on autopilot" you, or your unconscious mind, IS the autopilot. Therefore, YOU in fact ARE an autopilot and are also not paying attention.

But that's besides the point because, typically, this phrase is used to state that you should have been paying attention, because obviously, an autopilot system isn't as good as a fully aware human. Not to state that you don't have to be paying attention because you're on autopilot. For example, Instead of driving to school my brain was on autopilot, and I started driving to work!

Doesn't sound like a synonym for an 'autonomous system' to me.

The auxiliary verb (did) is marked for past tense, but the main verb is not. It appears in its base form.

I'm glad you will never review MY resume...

Learners Dictionary / Impact

Are you suggesting that there's a difference between "have to be" and "really need to be"?

Slightly different -- http://www.learnersdictionary....

I can continue listing other domestic terrorism by Christians.

And don't even try the "they aren't true Christians" nonsense.

A random dictionary's definition of christian:a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ

I would *add* that "believing" is not enough, and practicing is where the true follower is...
But Jesus gave his own litmus test, so why must you and I try to define "true" christian and waste time with the "no true scottsman fallacy": "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35)
There is no "love" in blowing people up and doing what some of these churches are individually doing to blemish the name of who they claim to follow. Jesus knew this about the wolves entering the flock. See Acts 20:29. The net result? false doctrine and interpretation create a rift between people and God.

It's highers-up, not higher-ups. Arrrgh!

No it isn't.

You might want to look up the word discriminatory. Since everybody has to follow the same rule with the GPLed code, the licence is not discriminatory.