"It also opens the door to running alternate desktop environments if youâ(TM)re not a fan of the Windows user interface (although the method described in that link uses Cygwin rather than Ubuntu on Windows."
Now if you could only get rid of that pesky spyware laden operating system under it then you would be golden.
Forgive me for asking but, what is systemd's main benefit? If i don't mind that my system boots up slower and in a sequential order, how does that affect the systemd's benefits for other users?
I really don't understand that statement. It sounds like nonsense to me. Please tell me because I honestly don't know what the snot he is talking about.
If systemd's main benefit was to obscure the boot process to prevent users from knowing what was going on during the boot process in order to squeeze in weird or unwanted code, then it would make sense that they don't want any users to know about that potentially questionable stuff so letting them use init would be detrimental to their efforts.
I can't see how that benefits me though. I don't care about what benefits them. If i'm trying to build a secure, manageable system, i'm looking for something that benefits me.
"Prime costs a lot less than the shipping charges it replaces."
It doesn't. Unless you are ordering everything including your groceries from it every week, you are spending more at the end of the year on your prime membership than just ordering more than $35 worth of stuff and selecting free shipping. I've personally worked out the numbers and two day shipping isn't worth the cost of prime for me. I probably order $2000-$3000 worth of stuff from Amazon every year and I probably pay shipping charges of between $10-$40 in a given year for all of it. That includes the stuff where they don't offer free shipping. Have a little patience and you can save quite bit of money.
I'm skeptical about the whole thing. The base platform is a chromebook. By definition, chrome and anything developed by google has hooks which phone-home. If you are going to build a locked down system, you should probably start with something that doesn't already leak like a sieve and have build in backdoors and malware in the operating system.
Eventually, Apple will be gathering all that data too.Because people will demand it.
What customers? I didnt realize that google was an expert in the auto industry. What demand. I haven't heard of anyone asking for this.
Google on the otherhand is just asking for the data now, so they can provide a more complete diagnostic and failure predictive warnings.
Stupid. There are already plenty of failure predictive warnings on vehicles right now. Especially luxury automotive brands. they are in no position to say that Porsche must allow them to gather that information about their customers (without their knowledge). And no Google doesn't get to decide if they'll be the one to recommend the shop mechanic to fix it. Its not their decision.
In my experience, more and more people are started to get a little wary of all data collection that is going on without their express consent. When people actually find out what and where data is being collected about them, even die hard data sharers are starting to ask why. Especially things that don't provide a net benefit for them. Most of the data collection does not provide a net benefit for them.
The only reason Porsche is rejecting this is because they would prefer to be able to charge a premium for this type of functionality.
Great, who is making the car again? Are you telling Porsche that they cant make money on additional functionality like this? Even if they said yes to google, they could still turn the functionality off and on based on some premium pricing. That wouldn't change. It seems a lot more likely that they didn't like Google's terms in relation to the way the data is used, handled, processed, and transmitted. Porsche could even write the app themselves if they wanted to. My guess is that they don't want some company telling them what information they need to give up about their customers. Customers that pay a premium price already for the name and functionality of the vehicles they produce.
I'm not asking for it. What choice do I have if I wanted to buy a Porsche? The car isn't made by google and they don't get to decide what the customer wants. They have apiece of software that is being licensed by Porsche. Porsche, being a luxury sports car maker is uniquely in a position to decide not only what they want to put into their car but also what their customers want.
What customers are these anyway? I don't remember hearing about any such survey or study to determine what functionality that users wanted that wasn't already there in the Porsche audio/entertainment system. Remind me again who is supposed to make the decision what customers are probably going to want in a product made by a specific company.
The point is that Porsche should be telling google what they want their entertainment system to do and how much information they want to send to it. Google should not be asking for this information and they should definitely not be the one dictating what information is required for an embedded audio entertanment system. the next thing you know Google will be sending all the data back to their datacenters, monitoring not only where you are but how fat you are diving, what rpms you are changing gears so they can let your insurance know if you have a lead foot, and your auto mechanic if you like to bounce off the rev limiter a little too often.
losing out on my privacy and autonomy in the name of someone elses stupid feature is the wrong way to go. Google making demands on a car company when the car company is the one who should be making decisions about the features and functionality of the car is the wrong way to go.
Google should STFU and be happy that someone wants to pay to license their technology and then they should work to provide the features that the licensee wants.
I suspect well be getting the always on, talk to your web browser functionality so you dont have to click anything when you want ot make a call. You can just say "skype, call my mom" and and bing, skype will inform microsoft, the nsa, and your mom that you want to talk. And when you dont want ot talk to mom, skype will make sure any naughty keywords you use while sitting at your computer are also promptly forwarded to the NSA as well.
It's not a flaw of architecture or implementation. They implemented it this way on purpose. Its a flaw because they either didn't see or envision someone using the data they provided in a way that they thought made them look bad. And it does. He also brought to light to the world that this information was freely available with their implementation when they would have rather kept that a secret to the general public. Because of the public starts to realize how much of their information is available to others and how other can manipulate and use their data without their consent, the less and less they are going to be happy with that. That information should not be provided at all if they care about their users privacy as they are saying that they do. But that is all baloney. This is their business model.
It's facebook's privacy through obscurity policy. What the user DOESNT know we are taking from them or how it can be used will not make the user unhappy.
I'm sorry but your baby and cat pictures aren't "media" just like your family photo album isn't an "art gallery".
It is a social networking site. a site to talk to your friends and share personal experiences. Its media is only the sharing of personal thoughts and pictures or the passing on of useless cultural memes.
I think the word media get banded about far too much these days. Not everything is media.If you were a professional photographer, then your pictures could be considered media. And you probably wouldn't be sharing them on facebook. If you were a professional writer, you certainly wouldn't be using facebook as the means to share your professional works. That is not what the site it build for. Its built for interpersonal interactions. (with people you probably don't know or don't know well and you probably even care less about.) And then for facebook to draw up a statistical profile of you so that you can be put into various groups for others marketing opportunities.
It would not have ever been their first inclination to do that. Despite all the free and charitable projects that google does to make people forget what they actually do, they are at the very root a marketing and data warehousing company. Google's primary business is gathering information about you and using it to market to you or selling your information off to people who want to make money off of you. Secondarily, they act as an arm of the surveillance community providing information by request about their users to law enforcement.
All of those other projects they have which really don't make them any money are just there to help people forget what type of business they are really in.
With that in mind, how are they going to track and create profiles about you if you are using names which they cant directly link to you as an individual? Sure, they can be even more sneaky and just figure out its using using behavioral analysis. It's much easier though if you willingly give up all that information in different ways and on different sites and they can just correlate it all together to paint a picture of the human mess that we all are to some degree in our lives. Nothing is too private. Good wants you to believe you can trust them with that information that is private to you and that you wouldn't normally share. And they want you to forget that they in fact do intend to share it. Even if you don't get a notification about it.
"At least with Facebook, you generally knew what non-FB sites would post on your FB, as it would ask for your FB login."
I find this to not be true these days. This may have been true early on. Now, if you are logged into facebook in another window and allow scripts to run, lots of web pages have scripts from facebook.com and other facebook related sites that will automatically tag you when you visit the site and send some information back to facebook about your visit. Exactly what information gets sent back, I do not know. So, everytime you visit the site, you are running scripts originating from a facebook domain.
This is easy enough to spot if you use noscript and don't allow any site related scripts by default. I will selectively allow (temporarily) sites when I need to get a website to work properly and will stop if they are requiring me to add some sites that I absolutely do not want to be associated with.
"The kind of hack that takes control of a car and disables the brakes is not an accident. It is like someone cutting the brake lines. And we don't require car manufacturers to make brake lines out of triply reinforced kevlar and steel so that people can't maliciously cut through them, nor require automakers to wrap the car in fireproof material in case somebody douses it in gasoline and sets fire to it. They just need to be enough to make it through standard operating conditions, not outright attacks. "
I don't think this is a good comparison. A better comparison would be that the car company puts a little green button on the outside of the door of your car which triggers the breaks to lock in the car and not asking if this green button might not be a smart or safe thing to have on the outside of the car. Then while you are driving on the highway, a gang of hooligans comes along and presses that button out of their window causing you to lock up your breaks, swerve and crash into a barrier killing you.
Sure all these technical advances are fun and can make or improve the experience you have while in the car. But if are adding little green buttons and you don't have a good grasp behind the little green button technologies, then the onus is on you to speak to expert in that specific field. and if you don't, then the fault and liability if on you.
Sounds like a fun game except when you realize that to do that means taking down tons of non-infringing stuff. so to make a point and an example of Universal, you are basically going to affect who knows how many non-related entities which would not be found to be infringing.
its like saying "we agree with you that your stuff is not infringing but we want to make an example of universal so we are going to do damage to you by removing all your non-infringing work from our search results"
Hopefully your organization is going to have a list of apps that people use that need to work in order to get shit done. That stuff gets tested. If your software isn't on the list, then you are SOL. That is why companies try to control what gets installed on user systems.
Also, as far as the finance department, they are behind another very strictly control network policy to limit which data gets in and out of that network. In most cases, this upgrade happens separately from the upgrade for the normal users. It probably gets tested for longer and more thoroughly to make sure that the apps that need to run in that environment continue to run. Since finances computer systems are usually not accessible from even the rest of the corporate network, its usually not as much of a problem to wait on this part of the upgrade. Also, any security policy that's worth anything is going to make sure that you aren't running weird third party apps on the machines that directly access and manipulate the financial data.
More than just best practices, this is really the most basic obvious shit that you should know if you work this part of the security field.
agreed. I think the goal is really to limit the impact of a user being stupid and being compromised. A good security policy with very tightly monitored separation of duties and least privilege is a good starting point.
This is why estimates are used. Because these costs do need to be calculated. This is the job of a security architect. Everything can be calculated to a reasonable proximity and accurateness. You aren't going to calculate everything to the last dime. You want to give the management team an idea of what they are going to lose if they decide on a certain course in relation to security. Then the management ultimately makes the decision.
Single point of failure. If your one password is compromised, then every single service you use with SSO is them compromised. Its great if you are in a corporate environment with plenty of corporate protection.
Also, from the sounds of it, these "experts" may be well versed in a specific domain but not really expert in everything related to online security. With websites being hacked daily, you pick the websites you want to deal with based on some set of trust relationship. You wouldn't go to a sketchy looking website and put in your social security number and all your banking information. We a REAL security expert is going to determine whether a website is trustworthy and probably assign it some value as to its relative safety.
1. Do I think this website may be in itself malicious? 2. if the website isn't malicious, does the technology they use to protect their users meet a minimum standard for security to prevent any information i may put on there from possibly being stolen. 3. if the security meets the standards, is it safe for me to share personal information? what does this company do with the information that is shared. From a corporate standpoint, does their business model focus on selling or manipulating user information?. Is information shared outside the company with or without my permission? 4. Should an online entity or company be asking for this (some level of) personal information from me that has nothing do with the the service they offer me or the business relationship we have?
Oh and password managers... for the lazy. Again single point of failure. If a large company like Amazon and Microsoft be hacked with probably some of the more advanced security infrastructures for online businesses, then some piddly little company website is not going to be a match for a determined hacker and then it again becomes a single point of failure.
Use a password locker application on your desktop. Never something you have to connect to remotely. You should trust and work to make sure the security within your own network and on your desktop meets your standards which should be better than any website you would think twice before sharing information with.
And the cloud... marketing drivel. if you are putting your personal information that you specifically dont want other people to have access too. putting your safety and security in the hands of a third party with unknown ability, motives or skills, then you by definition are an idiot. Services and machines are hacked everyday.
And just so we are clear, 100% of online identity fraud happens because of information about you that makes its way online. Identity fraud numbers have skyrocketed in the past few years. And It mostly correlates time wise with the rapid adoption of facebook and other social networking services.
I can see your point and I don't disagree with it. I don't think that was the point of the headline though. I imagine the headline was intended to be a reflection of the time in which the company existed. This is because there was a perception back then that women (ie:housewives) as the cultural roles has pin-holed them into were incapable of working or succeeding in these male dominated roles at the time.
We know that isn't true and those perceptions are not nearly as stark now as we have years and years of shifts in our cultural ideas under our belts since then. And Vector Graphics definitely had an affect on the PC market at the time that irreparably changed the design and also the notion of the use of PCs. They weren't the only ones to have an affect and the amount of affect they had is debatable. But they most certainly had an affect.
The headline points more to sort of a odd nostalgic look at the 70s and the idea that "Hey look at what these housewives can accomplish." It would be offensive today to refer to women in the workplace as housewives. A lot of things have changed since the 70s. And for the better.
TLDR; back in the 70's there was a very pronounced perception that housewives were housewives because they were incapable of doing anything else. They were wrong. the headline reflects a retrospective nostalgia of the thinking in the 1970s.
Linux (what became Slackware) started on the PC and ran exclusively on PC hardware for a very long time before it was ported to anything else. I still have the original floppy disks with that very early code to prove it. Once linux started to gain popularity, then it was ported to other platforms. But this was not for years after linux was running on pc hardware.
I think it would be great if they reigned in the whole shadow-banning nonsense to only allow it in the case of spam. if something is spam and it is verified to be spam, then the post goes away. But no longer allowing shadow-banning for anything else. even if that something else is vile or repugnant. There are other ways to deal with that content.
Maybe the mods in a group can't delete a vile comment but they can moderate it down below a threshold that will cause it to not be visible by default unless the user wishes to read below that threshold. maybe that threshold would be -100 so it would take a great many normal users to get a message below the threshold. Just a thought. there may be some pitfalls with this approach also. It is more favorable than the approach they seem to be taking though.
This is not a troll. Ive been on/. for a very long time. I left/. for a very long time and came back more recently./. has a niche. even with that people still complain about the moderation system here. Are you guys (and gals) seriously implying that reddit should basically be turned into/. Aside from the stupidity that they are currently embroiled in, I can't see another way to more effectively destroy reddit than to try to implement the/. principles there. Reddit is a social site first and then a news and information site second. To leave moderation in the hands of a few select people takes most of the social aspects away from people.
The strength of reddit is in the community and not in the content. there is probably as much or more garbage that goes through reddit as good and interesting content. The benefit is that the worst of it is obscured through a subscription model where you only subscribe to the groups that you are interested in. Moderators already have to much power and pull there. and The shadowbanning nonsense, while i can understand the original intent, is being abused by people with power to silence people they disagree with.
Im a member of both of these communities. What reddit does now is going to determine whether they go the way of the dodo (Digg) or they continue to be a viable social community for discussion of any topics of interest to people. Hate groups can stay in their little silos and feel like they can have their free expression as long as it doesn't trickle out into unrelated groups. Subscribing to those groups should come with a stern warning or two to make sure that people with sensibilities know to avoid it.
I cant stand the hate and vitriol. The hate groups are a blemish on the internet and the world. But if people start banning that speech, that means they have the power to ban other unpopular speech or even people they disagree with.
Slashdot Mirror
"It also opens the door to running alternate desktop environments if youâ(TM)re not a fan of the Windows user interface (although the method described in that link uses Cygwin rather than Ubuntu on Windows."
Now if you could only get rid of that pesky spyware laden operating system under it then you would be golden.
Forgive me for asking but, what is systemd's main benefit? If i don't mind that my system boots up slower and in a sequential order, how does that affect the systemd's benefits for other users?
I really don't understand that statement. It sounds like nonsense to me. Please tell me because I honestly don't know what the snot he is talking about.
If systemd's main benefit was to obscure the boot process to prevent users from knowing what was going on during the boot process in order to squeeze in weird or unwanted code, then it would make sense that they don't want any users to know about that potentially questionable stuff so letting them use init would be detrimental to their efforts.
I can't see how that benefits me though. I don't care about what benefits them. If i'm trying to build a secure, manageable system, i'm looking for something that benefits me.
"Prime costs a lot less than the shipping charges it replaces."
It doesn't. Unless you are ordering everything including your groceries from it every week, you are spending more at the end of the year on your prime membership than just ordering more than $35 worth of stuff and selecting free shipping. I've personally worked out the numbers and two day shipping isn't worth the cost of prime for me. I probably order $2000-$3000 worth of stuff from Amazon every year and I probably pay shipping charges of between $10-$40 in a given year for all of it. That includes the stuff where they don't offer free shipping. Have a little patience and you can save quite bit of money.
HPE is not a Microsoft shop. Perhaps in some other division.
Source: I am an HP Employee. (HP Enterprise)
I'm skeptical about the whole thing. The base platform is a chromebook. By definition, chrome and anything developed by google has hooks which phone-home. If you are going to build a locked down system, you should probably start with something that doesn't already leak like a sieve and have build in backdoors and malware in the operating system.
Eventually, Apple will be gathering all that data too.Because people will demand it.
What customers? I didnt realize that google was an expert in the auto industry. What demand. I haven't heard of anyone asking for this.
Google on the otherhand is just asking for the data now, so they can provide a more complete diagnostic and failure predictive warnings.
Stupid. There are already plenty of failure predictive warnings on vehicles right now. Especially luxury automotive brands. they are in no position to say that Porsche must allow them to gather that information about their customers (without their knowledge). And no Google doesn't get to decide if they'll be the one to recommend the shop mechanic to fix it. Its not their decision.
In my experience, more and more people are started to get a little wary of all data collection that is going on without their express consent. When people actually find out what and where data is being collected about them, even die hard data sharers are starting to ask why. Especially things that don't provide a net benefit for them. Most of the data collection does not provide a net benefit for them.
The only reason Porsche is rejecting this is because they would prefer to be able to charge a premium for this type of functionality.
Great, who is making the car again? Are you telling Porsche that they cant make money on additional functionality like this? Even if they said yes to google, they could still turn the functionality off and on based on some premium pricing. That wouldn't change. It seems a lot more likely that they didn't like Google's terms in relation to the way the data is used, handled, processed, and transmitted. Porsche could even write the app themselves if they wanted to. My guess is that they don't want some company telling them what information they need to give up about their customers. Customers that pay a premium price already for the name and functionality of the vehicles they produce.
I'm not asking for it. What choice do I have if I wanted to buy a Porsche?
The car isn't made by google and they don't get to decide what the customer wants. They have apiece of software that is being licensed by Porsche.
Porsche, being a luxury sports car maker is uniquely in a position to decide not only what they want to put into their car but also what their customers want.
What customers are these anyway? I don't remember hearing about any such survey or study to determine what functionality that users wanted that wasn't already there in the Porsche audio/entertainment system. Remind me again who is supposed to make the decision what customers are probably going to want in a product made by a specific company.
You sound like a paid shill. Just sayin'
The point is that Porsche should be telling google what they want their entertainment system to do and how much information they want to send to it. Google should not be asking for this information and they should definitely not be the one dictating what information is required for an embedded audio entertanment system. the next thing you know Google will be sending all the data back to their datacenters, monitoring not only where you are but how fat you are diving, what rpms you are changing gears so they can let your insurance know if you have a lead foot, and your auto mechanic if you like to bounce off the rev limiter a little too often.
losing out on my privacy and autonomy in the name of someone elses stupid feature is the wrong way to go. Google making demands on a car company when the car company is the one who should be making decisions about the features and functionality of the car is the wrong way to go.
Google should STFU and be happy that someone wants to pay to license their technology and then they should work to provide the features that the licensee wants.
I suspect well be getting the always on, talk to your web browser functionality so you dont have to click anything when you want ot make a call. You can just say "skype, call my mom" and and bing, skype will inform microsoft, the nsa, and your mom that you want to talk. And when you dont want ot talk to mom, skype will make sure any naughty keywords you use while sitting at your computer are also promptly forwarded to the NSA as well.
It's not a flaw of architecture or implementation. They implemented it this way on purpose. Its a flaw because they either didn't see or envision someone using the data they provided in a way that they thought made them look bad. And it does. He also brought to light to the world that this information was freely available with their implementation when they would have rather kept that a secret to the general public. Because of the public starts to realize how much of their information is available to others and how other can manipulate and use their data without their consent, the less and less they are going to be happy with that. That information should not be provided at all if they care about their users privacy as they are saying that they do. But that is all baloney. This is their business model.
It's facebook's privacy through obscurity policy. What the user DOESNT know we are taking from them or how it can be used will not make the user unhappy.
I'm sorry but your baby and cat pictures aren't "media" just like your family photo album isn't an "art gallery".
It is a social networking site. a site to talk to your friends and share personal experiences. Its media is only the sharing of personal thoughts and pictures or the passing on of useless cultural memes.
I think the word media get banded about far too much these days. Not everything is media.If you were a professional photographer, then your pictures could be considered media. And you probably wouldn't be sharing them on facebook. If you were a professional writer, you certainly wouldn't be using facebook as the means to share your professional works. That is not what the site it build for. Its built for interpersonal interactions. (with people you probably don't know or don't know well and you probably even care less about.) And then for facebook to draw up a statistical profile of you so that you can be put into various groups for others marketing opportunities.
It would not have ever been their first inclination to do that. Despite all the free and charitable projects that google does to make people forget what they actually do, they are at the very root a marketing and data warehousing company. Google's primary business is gathering information about you and using it to market to you or selling your information off to people who want to make money off of you. Secondarily, they act as an arm of the surveillance community providing information by request about their users to law enforcement.
All of those other projects they have which really don't make them any money are just there to help people forget what type of business they are really in.
With that in mind, how are they going to track and create profiles about you if you are using names which they cant directly link to you as an individual? Sure, they can be even more sneaky and just figure out its using using behavioral analysis. It's much easier though if you willingly give up all that information in different ways and on different sites and they can just correlate it all together to paint a picture of the human mess that we all are to some degree in our lives. Nothing is too private. Good wants you to believe you can trust them with that information that is private to you and that you wouldn't normally share. And they want you to forget that they in fact do intend to share it. Even if you don't get a notification about it.
"At least with Facebook, you generally knew what non-FB sites would post on your FB, as it would ask for your FB login."
I find this to not be true these days. This may have been true early on. Now, if you are logged into facebook in another window and allow scripts to run, lots of web pages have scripts from facebook.com and other facebook related sites that will automatically tag you when you visit the site and send some information back to facebook about your visit. Exactly what information gets sent back, I do not know. So, everytime you visit the site, you are running scripts originating from a facebook domain.
This is easy enough to spot if you use noscript and don't allow any site related scripts by default. I will selectively allow (temporarily) sites when I need to get a website to work properly and will stop if they are requiring me to add some sites that I absolutely do not want to be associated with.
"The kind of hack that takes control of a car and disables the brakes is not an accident. It is like someone cutting the brake lines. And we don't require car manufacturers to make brake lines out of triply reinforced kevlar and steel so that people can't maliciously cut through them, nor require automakers to wrap the car in fireproof material in case somebody douses it in gasoline and sets fire to it. They just need to be enough to make it through standard operating conditions, not outright attacks. "
I don't think this is a good comparison. A better comparison would be that the car company puts a little green button on the outside of the door of your car which triggers the breaks to lock in the car and not asking if this green button might not be a smart or safe thing to have on the outside of the car. Then while you are driving on the highway, a gang of hooligans comes along and presses that button out of their window causing you to lock up your breaks, swerve and crash into a barrier killing you.
Sure all these technical advances are fun and can make or improve the experience you have while in the car. But if are adding little green buttons and you don't have a good grasp behind the little green button technologies, then the onus is on you to speak to expert in that specific field. and if you don't, then the fault and liability if on you.
Sounds like a fun game except when you realize that to do that means taking down tons of non-infringing stuff.
so to make a point and an example of Universal, you are basically going to affect who knows how many non-related entities which
would not be found to be infringing.
its like saying "we agree with you that your stuff is not infringing but we want to make an example of universal so we are going to do damage to you by removing all your non-infringing work from our search results"
Hopefully your organization is going to have a list of apps that people use that need to work in order to get shit done. That stuff gets tested. If your software isn't on the list, then you are SOL. That is why companies try to control what gets installed on user systems.
Also, as far as the finance department, they are behind another very strictly control network policy to limit which data gets in and out of that network. In most cases, this upgrade happens separately from the upgrade for the normal users. It probably gets tested for longer and more thoroughly to make sure that the apps that need to run in that environment continue to run. Since finances computer systems are usually not accessible from even the rest of the corporate network, its usually not as much of a problem to wait on this part of the upgrade. Also, any security policy that's worth anything is going to make sure that you aren't running weird third party apps on the machines that directly access and manipulate the financial data.
More than just best practices, this is really the most basic obvious shit that you should know if you work this part of the security field.
agreed.
I think the goal is really to limit the impact of a user being stupid and being compromised.
A good security policy with very tightly monitored separation of duties and least privilege is a good starting point.
This is why estimates are used. Because these costs do need to be calculated. This is the job of a security architect. Everything can be calculated to a reasonable proximity and accurateness. You aren't going to calculate everything to the last dime. You want to give the management team an idea of what they are going to lose if they decide on a certain course in relation to security. Then the management ultimately makes the decision.
SSO.. eeew no.
Single point of failure. If your one password is compromised, then every single service you use with SSO is them compromised.
Its great if you are in a corporate environment with plenty of corporate protection.
Also, from the sounds of it, these "experts" may be well versed in a specific domain but not really expert in everything related to online security.
With websites being hacked daily, you pick the websites you want to deal with based on some set of trust relationship. You wouldn't go to a sketchy looking website and put in your social security number and all your banking information. We a REAL security expert is going to determine whether a website is trustworthy and probably assign it some value as to its relative safety.
1. Do I think this website may be in itself malicious?
2. if the website isn't malicious, does the technology they use to protect their users meet a minimum standard for security to prevent any information i may put on there from possibly being stolen.
3. if the security meets the standards, is it safe for me to share personal information? what does this company do with the information that is shared. From a corporate standpoint, does their business model focus on selling or manipulating user information?. Is information shared outside the company with or without my permission?
4. Should an online entity or company be asking for this (some level of) personal information from me that has nothing do with the the service they offer me or the business relationship we have?
Oh and password managers... for the lazy. Again single point of failure. If a large company like Amazon and Microsoft be hacked with probably some of the more advanced security infrastructures for online businesses, then some piddly little company website is not going to be a match for a determined hacker and then it again becomes a single point of failure.
Use a password locker application on your desktop. Never something you have to connect to remotely.
You should trust and work to make sure the security within your own network and on your desktop meets your standards which should be better than any website you would think twice before sharing information with.
And the cloud... marketing drivel. if you are putting your personal information that you specifically dont want other people to have access too. putting your safety and security in the hands of a third party with unknown ability, motives or skills, then you by definition are an idiot. Services and machines are hacked everyday.
And just so we are clear, 100% of online identity fraud happens because of information about you that makes its way online. Identity fraud numbers have skyrocketed in the past few years. And It mostly correlates time wise with the rapid adoption of facebook and other social networking services.
I can see your point and I don't disagree with it. I don't think that was the point of the headline though.
I imagine the headline was intended to be a reflection of the time in which the company existed.
This is because there was a perception back then that women (ie:housewives) as the cultural roles has pin-holed them into were incapable of working or succeeding in these male dominated roles at the time.
We know that isn't true and those perceptions are not nearly as stark now as we have years and years of shifts in our cultural ideas under our belts since then.
And Vector Graphics definitely had an affect on the PC market at the time that irreparably changed the design and also the notion of the use of PCs. They weren't the only ones to have an affect and the amount of affect they had is debatable. But they most certainly had an affect.
The headline points more to sort of a odd nostalgic look at the 70s and the idea that "Hey look at what these housewives can accomplish."
It would be offensive today to refer to women in the workplace as housewives. A lot of things have changed since the 70s. And for the better.
TLDR; back in the 70's there was a very pronounced perception that housewives were housewives because they were incapable of doing anything else. They were wrong. the headline reflects a retrospective nostalgia of the thinking in the 1970s.
Linux (what became Slackware) started on the PC and ran exclusively on PC hardware for a very long time before it was ported to anything else. I still have the original floppy disks with that very early code to prove it. Once linux started to gain popularity, then it was ported to other platforms. But this was not for years after linux was running on pc hardware.
Credentials : old guy.
I think it would be great if they reigned in the whole shadow-banning nonsense to only allow it in the case of spam. if something is spam and it is verified to be spam, then the post goes away. But no longer allowing shadow-banning for anything else. even if that something else is vile or repugnant. There are other ways to deal with that content.
Maybe the mods in a group can't delete a vile comment but they can moderate it down below a threshold that will cause it to not be visible by default unless the user wishes to read below that threshold.
maybe that threshold would be -100 so it would take a great many normal users to get a message below the threshold.
Just a thought. there may be some pitfalls with this approach also. It is more favorable than the approach they seem to be taking though.
This is not a troll. Ive been on /. for a very long time. I left /. for a very long time and came back more recently. /. has a niche. even with that people still complain about the moderation system here. /. /. principles there.
Are you guys (and gals) seriously implying that reddit should basically be turned into
Aside from the stupidity that they are currently embroiled in, I can't see another way to more effectively destroy reddit than to try to implement the
Reddit is a social site first and then a news and information site second. To leave moderation in the hands of a few select people takes most of the social aspects away from people.
The strength of reddit is in the community and not in the content. there is probably as much or more garbage that goes through reddit as good and interesting content. The benefit is that the worst of it is obscured through a subscription model where you only subscribe to the groups that you are interested in.
Moderators already have to much power and pull there. and The shadowbanning nonsense, while i can understand the original intent, is being abused by people with power to silence people they disagree with.
Im a member of both of these communities. What reddit does now is going to determine whether they go the way of the dodo (Digg) or they continue to be a viable social community for discussion of any topics of interest to people. Hate groups can stay in their little silos and feel like they can have their free expression as long as it doesn't trickle out into unrelated groups. Subscribing to those groups should come with a stern warning or two to make sure that people with sensibilities know to avoid it.
I cant stand the hate and vitriol. The hate groups are a blemish on the internet and the world. But if people start banning that speech, that means they have the power to ban other unpopular speech or even people they disagree with.