I still don't really get what happened. Their system is supposed to be architected such that stealing all the data on their servers shouldn't get you much - everything is encrypted.
In the USA, "conservative" might mean an advocate of small government and reduced government power
Not really. The actual libertarians call themselves libertarians. That 'conservatives' in the US like to spread a vague sense that 'government is bad' isn't the same thing - these people generally aren't actually in favour of small government. (Military interventionism, subsidies for big companies, and spying on citizens, are not policies that real libertarians advocate.)
Just don't forget that - whatever Steve Gibson has to say on the matter - it does rely on the competence and integrity of the LastPass crew.
If LastPass rework their website so that your password is sent to them (rather than the encrypted hash generated by JavaScript), they can do decryption locally on their side (rather than in JavaScript in your browser), then they can read your passwords.
If they get man-in-the-middled somehow - by a malicious employee, say - your passwords are no longer yours.
They could engineer their site to be subpoena-friendly. (Whether they have, I don't know.)
Also, if someone hits you on the head after you've signed in to LastPass, they have all your passwords.
Of course there exist other games which are not DRM encumbered, but that's not what You don't have to means, in that context. Don't move the goalposts.
You have to use Steam for games which
1) Are only made available through Steam
2) Depend on the Steam runtime for play, for DRM and/or multiplayer matchmaking etc
It's an analogy. It demonstrates that intelligence services are not magically always able to always stop bad things in their early stages.
The only difference is an adjustment of odds, really. I don't know the details of weapons smuggling though: can they detect nuclear material that easily if they don't know where to look?
There are some cases, like with Stephen Hawking, where an individual wants so much to contribute to the world that they want to exist. Because of this, there should not be any hard limit put in as far as a person's life to which we should consider ending health care.
There is also the matter - and it is not trifling - that he wants to live. His intellectual output is not the reason he should be cared for.
I suspect that's what you're trying to get at with "they want to exist", but I don't think you expressed it well.
How is 'pride' anything more than a word we give to this emotional drive to maintain status?
Then the imperative is the maintenance of status. 'Pride' is an emotion. We aren't discussing emotions.
It appears to me that you're nitpicking on the word GPP used for being overly broad, for not digging deep enough, though you dismiss it with a quite broad wave.
I see nothing wrong with my broad-sweep dismissal. When people are discussing evolutionary imperatives such as appearing to be a good mate, ensuring availability of partners/food/shelter, reducing competition, etc, then when someone mentions 'pride', they're thinking at completely the wrong 'level of abstraction'.
I take your point, but: the real point here then is giving the appearance of being a high-quality mate. 'Pride' is just a high-level construct of the species, not a fundamental force affecting the success of the genes.
One cannot meaningfully use 'pride' as an explanation, when we're discussing behaviour from an evolutionary perspective, any more than one can use love, generosity, angry, or envy: they're all just 'implementation details'.
From an evolutionary perspective, we run from danger to maximise our effectiveness in effecting the propagation of our genes into future generations. To say we do it because we're scared would be a non-explanation.
Nope. McDonalds is for-profit. If their employees didn't earn their keep, they wouldn't be kept around.
if you raised the minimum wage to a living wage and quit letting the corps hand out "how to get government handout" videos to new employees? You'd find within a year all the fast food workers replaced with an automated system that not only wouldn't get paid but would probably have a better track record than the underpaid overworked employees do know when it comes to getting orders correct.
Nope. Firstly, McDonalds exists in all sorts of countries, including those with the highest minimum-wage rates in the world (Norway, the Netherlands, etc).
Secondly, if such automation is practical and within reach, why aren't they pursuing it already?
The only reason they don't kill each other is it's tougher for them to be lethal about it.
False. Thinking in naive evolutionary terms, it seems that the obvious course of action, having bested a rival, is to kill and eat him. But we rarely see this in nature.
This is discussed in The Selfish Gene, but my recollection of the specifics is a little fuzzy.
Slashdot Mirror
Google turned up this incident.
I still don't really get what happened. Their system is supposed to be architected such that stealing all the data on their servers shouldn't get you much - everything is encrypted.
Yes. Any further questions?
In the USA, "conservative" might mean an advocate of small government and reduced government power
Not really. The actual libertarians call themselves libertarians. That 'conservatives' in the US like to spread a vague sense that 'government is bad' isn't the same thing - these people generally aren't actually in favour of small government. (Military interventionism, subsidies for big companies, and spying on citizens, are not policies that real libertarians advocate.)
Just don't forget that - whatever Steve Gibson has to say on the matter - it does rely on the competence and integrity of the LastPass crew.
If LastPass rework their website so that your password is sent to them (rather than the encrypted hash generated by JavaScript), they can do decryption locally on their side (rather than in JavaScript in your browser), then they can read your passwords.
If they get man-in-the-middled somehow - by a malicious employee, say - your passwords are no longer yours.
They could engineer their site to be subpoena-friendly. (Whether they have, I don't know.)
Also, if someone hits you on the head after you've signed in to LastPass, they have all your passwords.
I don't get it.
If the 'neutral party' is concerned by Google's bottom-line, they aren't neutral.
If they aren't selecting the research direction which is best for Stanford, their opinions shouldn't be imposed.
Of course there exist other games which are not DRM encumbered, but that's not what You don't have to means, in that context. Don't move the goalposts.
You have to use Steam for games which
No, you certainly do have to. Steam is a DRM system as well as a distribution system.
It's an analogy. It demonstrates that intelligence services are not magically always able to always stop bad things in their early stages.
The only difference is an adjustment of odds, really. I don't know the details of weapons smuggling though: can they detect nuclear material that easily if they don't know where to look?
Your reasoning seems to rely on an assumption of an omniscient and infallible CIA.
One would hope they'd have the competence and luck to discover the plot and intervene, of course, but it's a matter of odds.
When journalists smuggle weapons onto aircraft, one doesn't respond with but the FBI would have caught you beforehand if you were real terrorists.
See: Wirth's Law.
As I replied above to another comment:
Neat. Does it sync back with Google's 'cloud' when it's back online, though?
There are some cases, like with Stephen Hawking, where an individual wants so much to contribute to the world that they want to exist. Because of this, there should not be any hard limit put in as far as a person's life to which we should consider ending health care.
There is also the matter - and it is not trifling - that he wants to live. His intellectual output is not the reason he should be cared for.
I suspect that's what you're trying to get at with "they want to exist", but I don't think you expressed it well.
You already made clear your pessimism.
Wow. So cool and cynical. Some day I hope to be just like you.
How is 'pride' anything more than a word we give to this emotional drive to maintain status?
Then the imperative is the maintenance of status. 'Pride' is an emotion. We aren't discussing emotions.
It appears to me that you're nitpicking on the word GPP used for being overly broad, for not digging deep enough, though you dismiss it with a quite broad wave.
I see nothing wrong with my broad-sweep dismissal. When people are discussing evolutionary imperatives such as appearing to be a good mate, ensuring availability of partners/food/shelter, reducing competition, etc, then when someone mentions 'pride', they're thinking at completely the wrong 'level of abstraction'.
How much of this nonsense are we going to let them get away with?
One of the few points of centralisation on the Internet, and sure enough, they're screwing us.
How one would go about killing ICANN, I don't know...
What a very enlightening comment you just failed to write.
Why is it that nearly everything from ACs is crap? I really do wonder.
Hence the doesn't...
And the guy's name is Adolph - quickly, let Godwin's will be done!
I take your point, but: the real point here then is giving the appearance of being a high-quality mate. 'Pride' is just a high-level construct of the species, not a fundamental force affecting the success of the genes.
One cannot meaningfully use 'pride' as an explanation, when we're discussing behaviour from an evolutionary perspective, any more than one can use love, generosity, angry, or envy: they're all just 'implementation details'.
From an evolutionary perspective, we run from danger to maximise our effectiveness in effecting the propagation of our genes into future generations. To say we do it because we're scared would be a non-explanation.
From an evolutionary perspective, this is meaningless.
We do that now at fast food joints
Nope. McDonalds is for-profit. If their employees didn't earn their keep, they wouldn't be kept around.
if you raised the minimum wage to a living wage and quit letting the corps hand out "how to get government handout" videos to new employees? You'd find within a year all the fast food workers replaced with an automated system that not only wouldn't get paid but would probably have a better track record than the underpaid overworked employees do know when it comes to getting orders correct.
Nope. Firstly, McDonalds exists in all sorts of countries, including those with the highest minimum-wage rates in the world (Norway, the Netherlands, etc).
Secondly, if such automation is practical and within reach, why aren't they pursuing it already?
The only reason they don't kill each other is it's tougher for them to be lethal about it.
False. Thinking in naive evolutionary terms, it seems that the obvious course of action, having bested a rival, is to kill and eat him. But we rarely see this in nature.
This is discussed in The Selfish Gene, but my recollection of the specifics is a little fuzzy.
Nonsense. It's entirely reasonable to comment regarding what you do/do not want Slashdot to cover/discuss/become.
You missed the part where you justify your distaste...
There's nothing inherently wrong with additives or profits.