Sure, it's not opinion, but YouTube isn't the government, even if they're the big player. The government has an obligation not to ban videos merely for being offensive, but Google doesn't have a moral obligation to host them.
It isn't oppression when Slashdot refuses to publish fashion news, and it wouldn't be oppression for YouTube to ban jihadism advocacy.
At the same time, it's not unreasonable for Google to decide what sorts of videos they want on YouTube. No-one's too outraged that they don't generally allow 'adult' videos, for instance.
I agree there's a certain risk here, yes, and it's regrettable that YouTube dominates the way it does.
An example I'm familiar with is Jim Sterling's 'Jimquisition' series, which constantly faces YouTube-specific bullshit (generally but not always in the form of ungrounded accusations of copyright-infringement). Despite that this nonsense threatens his very career, he sticks with YouTube, not, say, Vimeo.
I still don't see that there's anything malicious at play here though. It's completely reasonable that advertisers don't want to be associated with insane bigotry, and it's completely reasonable that Google take steps to accommodate this.
I could well foresee that we'll soon see the same happening to anything that a loud and vocal group considers "bad speech".
It's market forces at play here (companies don't want to be associated with hate-filled YouTube rants), not government intervention. I'm not too worried.
But, windows dev is the easiest dev. By far hands down. With OS X or Linux, I don't even know where to begin and think it would be.
How about some specifics? Windows has UWP, WPF, and WinForms. Linux has Qt and Gtk. Or JavaFX if you're into that kind of thing, or various others. Which toolkits specifically do you mean?
It profitable enough to care. Especially for Linux.
Well sure, Linux desktop apps are a much narrower market than Windows.
Not the terrible integrated stuff. Ubuntu, which is hugely popular as the windows alternatives is ---- like windows and Mac.
What's your point? Ubuntu has a 'store' which is web-searchable. It had one long before Windows did. Not that either are authoritative anyway.
That's stupid. Of course there's something MS could do to drive people away from Windows.
Perhaps wholesale breaking of backward-compatibility might do it. Well, if there were a Linux desktop distro worth taking seriously as an alternative, at least (I admit I've not been keeping up on that front).
Haven't read his books, but I've listened to his later stand-up material. Honestly I figure his over-reliance on snark and bitterness didn't play to his favour there. He certainly had his moments, but a lot of the time it struck me as just empty anger with little real point.
Perhaps you could indeed construct a constitutional objection to copyright -- that was the reason the USA was so slow to adopt it, after all -- but I don't think that's the point being made here.
If you aren't going to bother to read my comment, why bother to reply?
I happen to agree that systemic copyright infringement should be opposed by the legal system. This has nothing to do with my point, which was that it's not a constitutional issue.
Do something similar with generation of LLVM bytecode, and you can remove the need for actual binaries for most purposes
Not really, no. Not with C.
C has platform-specific behaviour of primitive types, and uses macros for platform-specific conditional-compilation. Not something that translates well to bytecode, and certainly not to LLVM bitcode.
and also tweak OS designs so that many security properties can be enforced at the language level more easily
Not really. If you want something like array bounds-checking for C, or runtime checking for signed integer overflow, GCC can take a pretty good stab at that already. Just use the right flags.
Does it expose low-level synchronization primitives? Seems a pretty crucial question if we're going to start claiming it'll be the equivalent of writing C. (We can ignore little things like the limitations of the functionality exposed through web APIs.)
Non-answer. We're talking about preventing an attacker determining the 4-digit code even in the event that they duplicate our full database, salts and all.
If we were discussing service-level security concerns, as you describe, we wouldn't be discussing salts.
Also, your idea doesn't work, as it trades off heavily against liveness: it would be trivial to lock someone out of their account, just by making wrong guesses as to their PIN.
I don't follow. Nothing I've seen here convinces me it's possible to securely hash a set of 4-digit sequences. Salt gets you nowhere. Were this possible, short passwords would no longer be a security issue. What do you mean bruteforce the actual key?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a serious design-level security bug. Morons.
Sure, it's not opinion, but YouTube isn't the government, even if they're the big player. The government has an obligation not to ban videos merely for being offensive, but Google doesn't have a moral obligation to host them.
It isn't oppression when Slashdot refuses to publish fashion news, and it wouldn't be oppression for YouTube to ban jihadism advocacy.
At the same time, it's not unreasonable for Google to decide what sorts of videos they want on YouTube. No-one's too outraged that they don't generally allow 'adult' videos, for instance.
I agree there's a certain risk here, yes, and it's regrettable that YouTube dominates the way it does.
An example I'm familiar with is Jim Sterling's 'Jimquisition' series, which constantly faces YouTube-specific bullshit (generally but not always in the form of ungrounded accusations of copyright-infringement). Despite that this nonsense threatens his very career, he sticks with YouTube, not, say, Vimeo.
I still don't see that there's anything malicious at play here though. It's completely reasonable that advertisers don't want to be associated with insane bigotry, and it's completely reasonable that Google take steps to accommodate this.
The difference is you can host your unpopular video somewhere else.
It isn't oppression when a company (or a navy) wants to avoid being associated with a Jew-hating lunatic on the Internet.
Clearly we're talking dynamic employees here.
(I'll show myself out.)
I could well foresee that we'll soon see the same happening to anything that a loud and vocal group considers "bad speech".
It's market forces at play here (companies don't want to be associated with hate-filled YouTube rants), not government intervention. I'm not too worried.
Well, the British government did get involved, but only in the same capacity as the affected companies: as a paying advertiser.
But, windows dev is the easiest dev. By far hands down. With OS X or Linux, I don't even know where to begin and think it would be.
How about some specifics? Windows has UWP, WPF, and WinForms. Linux has Qt and Gtk. Or JavaFX if you're into that kind of thing, or various others. Which toolkits specifically do you mean?
It profitable enough to care. Especially for Linux.
Well sure, Linux desktop apps are a much narrower market than Windows.
Not the terrible integrated stuff. Ubuntu, which is hugely popular as the windows alternatives is ---- like windows and Mac.
What's your point? Ubuntu has a 'store' which is web-searchable. It had one long before Windows did. Not that either are authoritative anyway.
Didn't they do it in part already, when going from XP to 7 and then again 7 to 8?
Not really, no. You can still play really old games and run really old business applications in Windows 10.
About the phones thing: it's at times like this I wish the web-as-the-ultimate-platform pipe-dream were a reality.
You got me.
Except that (assuming you don't know gfxguy's situation ahead of time) you have no idea whether that's actually true in this case.
For some work, there is simply no practical FOSS alternative.
That's stupid. Of course there's something MS could do to drive people away from Windows.
Perhaps wholesale breaking of backward-compatibility might do it. Well, if there were a Linux desktop distro worth taking seriously as an alternative, at least (I admit I've not been keeping up on that front).
Yeah, don't you hate it when someone with an idiotic political agenda finds a way to work it into every topic?
Except there's no mention of it being inescapable forced onto mobile users. The sky isn't falling here.
Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, just be trolling.
Haven't read his books, but I've listened to his later stand-up material. Honestly I figure his over-reliance on snark and bitterness didn't play to his favour there. He certainly had his moments, but a lot of the time it struck me as just empty anger with little real point.
I'll have to dig up his earlier works some time.
You're right, there may be a due-process question here.
How on earth do you figure that isn't a constitutional issue?
Because, as I made quite clear, I was thinking of the First Amendment. Very often one sees confusion as to the scope of freedom of expression.
Perhaps you could indeed construct a constitutional objection to copyright -- that was the reason the USA was so slow to adopt it, after all -- but I don't think that's the point being made here.
Yes, that makes sense. No, my interpretation wasn't wholly moronic.
Regarding your sig, I'd hardly call your blustering anywhere near Carlin level.
If you aren't going to bother to read my comment, why bother to reply?
I happen to agree that systemic copyright infringement should be opposed by the legal system. This has nothing to do with my point, which was that it's not a constitutional issue.
constitution be damned
The First Amendment is about the government infringing on freedom of expression. Corporations being assholes isn't in the scope of the constitution.
Do something similar with generation of LLVM bytecode, and you can remove the need for actual binaries for most purposes
Not really, no. Not with C.
C has platform-specific behaviour of primitive types, and uses macros for platform-specific conditional-compilation. Not something that translates well to bytecode, and certainly not to LLVM bitcode.
and also tweak OS designs so that many security properties can be enforced at the language level more easily
Not really. If you want something like array bounds-checking for C, or runtime checking for signed integer overflow, GCC can take a pretty good stab at that already. Just use the right flags.
Does it expose low-level synchronization primitives? Seems a pretty crucial question if we're going to start claiming it'll be the equivalent of writing C. (We can ignore little things like the limitations of the functionality exposed through web APIs.)
Non-answer. We're talking about preventing an attacker determining the 4-digit code even in the event that they duplicate our full database, salts and all.
If we were discussing service-level security concerns, as you describe, we wouldn't be discussing salts.
Also, your idea doesn't work, as it trades off heavily against liveness: it would be trivial to lock someone out of their account, just by making wrong guesses as to their PIN.
I don't follow. Nothing I've seen here convinces me it's possible to securely hash a set of 4-digit sequences. Salt gets you nowhere. Were this possible, short passwords would no longer be a security issue. What do you mean bruteforce the actual key?