Today, the techniques are far more sophisticated, to the point where it is pretty much impossible to resist.
Surely a statement that bold requires a source or study. I dont find it impossible to resist; my TV intake consists almost exclusively of netflix, and the normal TV I DO watch tends to have advertising that I dont find it hard at all to resist.
Im sure you could respond "oh, but you ARE affected"; but again, I would expect you to have something more than gut feeling backing up your statement.
Yes, thats exactly right; certainly, I dont remember playing Perfect Dark a decade ago and being able to quickly swap between tens of weapons with ease. Certainly I dont recall playing the Turok games and having more than two weapons, or checkpoints. Certainly GoldenEye, or even that crappy South Park n64 game didnt have multiple weapons.
What games have YOU been playing? This isnt a limitation of consoles, its a limitation of limited games.
What happens when the CCP decides the rest of the world's internet is undesirable, and stops peering with it? You feel like setting up a 3g uplink for several billion people?
If you live in the US, you have more freedoms (both of things you can do, and from restrictions ie censorship) than 95% of the world. Putting in a snide comment about how you have "some freedoms [instead of lots of freedoms]" because you live in the US-- in a thread about China, no less-- is just insulting to the folks in China who would love to be able to actually criticize their government without being sent to labor camp.
The average mundane "idiot" doesn't have the time to be a subject matter expert on every single event in history, every single peice of technology, so on so forth, all at once
And on that assumption, you would think we would have far fewer people posting about such things that they havent researched; sadly, thats not the case.
Just because you disagree with their supposed motivations (and I will admit I am not qualified to speak to the founders motivations in detail), doesnt mean that their conclusions (restricted government, representation, checks and balances) were flawed.
I would wonder, if one has so much trouble trusting large corporations with power, why would you want to turn around and grant so much more power to an even larger, more bureaucratic, and more entrenched federal government-- particularly when it has shown such a disinclination to ever ever give an inch of power back once gained? I mean, at least corporations tend to fail periodically; the government will be with us until a rather large upheaval unsettles it (and anyone looking forward to such an event doesnt have a clue).
To sit at a computer in one of (top 10) the richest, freest, safest, and most stable countries in the world and complain about how bad your police force is a sign that you arent really prepared to discuss the problems our country faces. If you arent able to soberly and competently assess the situation we face, why should anyone take seriously your opinions on the matter?
Is it? Where are the fine upstanding officers not willing to obstruct justice or be an accessory after the fact
The term "vocal minority" seems to fit rather well here. There may be a problem, but the reason you dont hear about counter examples is because people dont typically go on their blogs to state "I got pulled over for a ticket I deserved today, and man that cop did his job satisfactorially; he didnt trample on my rights or anything".
If you really want to see what it looks like when the entirety of the police force has impunity to trample on your rights, travel to an authoritarian country with a truely corrupt police force. You might try Syria, or Libya, or Zimbabwe; and if you want to see what it looks like when the core government itself is perpetuating the rights violations, you could try China, or Sri Lanka, or any number of other Asian and Middle Eastern countries.
We have problems here, but no reasonable conversation will come about when people try to compare the US to those countries straight out of the gate.
Thats funny, I dont think it was founded on either of those principals. I rather thought "freedom" and "restricted government" were the primary principles.
But no, carry on, lots of regulation is exactly what the founders meant with the 10th amendment.
(NB-- I actually think this might be a good place for regulation-- but to state that thats one of the founding principles is absurd)
Yes. Only 2 types of cancer had anything resembling a vague correlation, and so are in the "maybe causes cancer, if we dont determine it was chance, or bias, or sampling error" category.
In other words, anyone claiming we need to start changing our lives based on this is full of it, there is neither a suggested mechanism (non-ionizing radiation, only known bio effects are thermal), nor anything resembling a good study linking cancer to cell phone use.
2) He suggests that the above could also apply to convicts about to be executed, again with consent and without introducing additional suffering
This causes me concern-- I think the slippery slope of "how long will consent be mandatory" might apply here.
4) He suggests that the idea of experimenting on consenting humans would be preferable to experimenting on non-consenting animals.
Assuming of course that consent is always kept as the PRIMARY consideration-- not the fact that they are condemned, or terminally ill. I have no doubt there are many would would suggest that if someone is to be executed anyways, why not perform such and such an experiment on the unwilling prisoner.
Establish that it's perfectly legal to film the police doing their job in a public place.
Laws generally restrict or take away freedoms, not grant them-- at least in a free country. I dont think you want to get into the habit of implying that rights must be granted.
Youll note that neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights grant us any rights; they simply state which rights of ours may not be legislated over (or alternatively, they guard our rights).
I can say with confidence that the majority of cops do not run around shooting folks, as has been implied here. A good number of them may be arrogant jerks, and they may not get disciplined as hard as they should (but then, who does, in governmental jobs?), but the solution is not to rant about how we're no better than authoritarian states like China and Nazi Germany.
No, but calling them nazis, porcine donut eaters, and crooks (blanket statements all); comparing us to WW2 Germany and Communist China; and calling the majority of cops "psychopaths" (all of these, from this very thread) is certainly a bit much.
I have to say, all this foaming mouthed hyperbole really contributes to a reasoned discussion.
When you make sarcastic remarks implying that China is better off in terms of free speech and all the rest, you really only show your ignorance. If this were china, there WOULD be no local story on it; there WOULD be no blogging of it, and all mentions of "miami shooting" would be blocked on google.
Good job on taking a legitimate concern and putting just such a spin on it that it becomes a parody of itself.
Some people simply shouldn't have computers at all, for their own safety.
For years, computer geeks and the media alike have been hollering that everyone needs antivirus, and warning them of the dire dire dangers of not being protected. So now that malware is exploiting that by warning users (as their trusted Antivirus program!) that "we have detected these threats, you better act now", you want to call them stupid for trying to follow all those warnings?
Really, where the heck do you mac users get this sense of assurance from? For years, people have been telling you that the platform is no protection from 3rd party security vulnerabilities (java, acrobat, flash); and for years we've been saying that no platform is bug free; and for years we've watched as Mac after Mac falls in Pwn2Own to exploits which "just work".
We've also been saying that "once Mac gets a big enough market share, malware vendors will set their sights on Apple". And guess what, its starting now. Why are you so sure that they wont start using those no-click exploits commercially? And the real question of the day, what security features are you so confident in from OSX that you think Windows 7 and Vista dont have?
The "Install me now" routine pops up, but you have to voluntarily enter your username and password for it to infect you on the Mac. You can become infected on Windows just by surfing the wrong website.
Um, just a few days ago we had a story about how Mac Defender no longer required a password. Userland rootkits are very possible, you know, and a spambot doesnt need admin access to do its thing.
As for "surfing the wrong website", I thought that was the entire scary part of the first 5 articles on this subject-- that the program can autoinstall depending on safari settings. And on windows, the only way to actually get an auto-installed virus is to have out of date plugins; what Mac security feature prevents that sort of exploit again? Oh thats right, none.
Regardless, arent Macs usually the first platform nailed in the Pwn2Own competitions, where the requirement is a no-user-interaction exploit? What on earth makes you feel so confident in OSX? Does it even have any tools to remove bootkits (windows has Combofix, GMER, mbrcheck, etc)?
If you think youre not at parity with Windows, youre mistaken. Windows already hassoftware built in and freely downloadable which eliminates threats. The MSRT runs every time updates are done, and apparently is capable of removing significant threats, and MSSE is quite good-- Ive seen it remove bootkits.
Windows also already has tons of prompts for running files downloaded from the internet (think "executable bit"-- check properties of any exe you download from the internet for the "unblock" button), especially those done from its native browser, and it already has prompts for administrative functions.
Based on the wording of your post, it sounds like you believe Mac has a leg up here. In what way do you believe that to be the case? Right now, the only way Im aware of to infect a Win7 machine running IE9 is thru an outdated Java or Flash plugin. On Mac, those drive-bys "just work", according to the stories we've been seeing.
So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating
So would that be like Windows Defender (self updating and never gives popups), the Malicious Software Removal Tool (built into windows updates, self-updates and self-runs), or Microsoft Security Essentials (free for all with a windows update, self-updating, self healing, etc)?
Oh but thats right, its not Apple, so it doesnt count.
Why would they leave? Tax is only being collected on purchases of in state companies to in state residents and that's up for debate.
Potentially, because it would mean that their sales process gets a lot more complicated and expensive. They would be responsible for knowing all the tax details for every county in California, and for having a special Ca-only checkout process.
The legislature should ideally weigh the harms of that against the potential disadvantages of actually collecting a tax they said they were going to tax and those companies should have been budgeting for in the first place...
Or they could rein in their budget. Isnt this the state that recently just spent $100 million on a new school, and wants to outfit all their students with ipads?
And now theres supposed to be some kind of sympathy because theyre (still) running out of money?
Slashdot Mirror
Today, the techniques are far more sophisticated, to the point where it is pretty much impossible to resist.
Surely a statement that bold requires a source or study. I dont find it impossible to resist; my TV intake consists almost exclusively of netflix, and the normal TV I DO watch tends to have advertising that I dont find it hard at all to resist.
Im sure you could respond "oh, but you ARE affected"; but again, I would expect you to have something more than gut feeling backing up your statement.
Well, generally profit implies that youre doing something right; if youre not, generally that profit disappears in short order.
Yes, thats exactly right; certainly, I dont remember playing Perfect Dark a decade ago and being able to quickly swap between tens of weapons with ease. Certainly I dont recall playing the Turok games and having more than two weapons, or checkpoints. Certainly GoldenEye, or even that crappy South Park n64 game didnt have multiple weapons.
What games have YOU been playing? This isnt a limitation of consoles, its a limitation of limited games.
While everything youve said is true, keep in mind its also true of any other artificial currency (except #3 i suppose).
What happens when the CCP decides the rest of the world's internet is undesirable, and stops peering with it? You feel like setting up a 3g uplink for several billion people?
If you live in the US, you have more freedoms (both of things you can do, and from restrictions ie censorship) than 95% of the world. Putting in a snide comment about how you have "some freedoms [instead of lots of freedoms]" because you live in the US-- in a thread about China, no less-- is just insulting to the folks in China who would love to be able to actually criticize their government without being sent to labor camp.
The average mundane "idiot" doesn't have the time to be a subject matter expert on every single event in history, every single peice of technology, so on so forth, all at once
And on that assumption, you would think we would have far fewer people posting about such things that they havent researched; sadly, thats not the case.
Just because you disagree with their supposed motivations (and I will admit I am not qualified to speak to the founders motivations in detail), doesnt mean that their conclusions (restricted government, representation, checks and balances) were flawed.
I would wonder, if one has so much trouble trusting large corporations with power, why would you want to turn around and grant so much more power to an even larger, more bureaucratic, and more entrenched federal government-- particularly when it has shown such a disinclination to ever ever give an inch of power back once gained? I mean, at least corporations tend to fail periodically; the government will be with us until a rather large upheaval unsettles it (and anyone looking forward to such an event doesnt have a clue).
To sit at a computer in one of (top 10) the richest, freest, safest, and most stable countries in the world and complain about how bad your police force is a sign that you arent really prepared to discuss the problems our country faces. If you arent able to soberly and competently assess the situation we face, why should anyone take seriously your opinions on the matter?
Is it? Where are the fine upstanding officers not willing to obstruct justice or be an accessory after the fact
The term "vocal minority" seems to fit rather well here. There may be a problem, but the reason you dont hear about counter examples is because people dont typically go on their blogs to state "I got pulled over for a ticket I deserved today, and man that cop did his job satisfactorially; he didnt trample on my rights or anything".
If you really want to see what it looks like when the entirety of the police force has impunity to trample on your rights, travel to an authoritarian country with a truely corrupt police force. You might try Syria, or Libya, or Zimbabwe; and if you want to see what it looks like when the core government itself is perpetuating the rights violations, you could try China, or Sri Lanka, or any number of other Asian and Middle Eastern countries.
We have problems here, but no reasonable conversation will come about when people try to compare the US to those countries straight out of the gate.
Thats funny, I dont think it was founded on either of those principals. I rather thought "freedom" and "restricted government" were the primary principles.
But no, carry on, lots of regulation is exactly what the founders meant with the 10th amendment.
(NB-- I actually think this might be a good place for regulation-- but to state that thats one of the founding principles is absurd)
Yes. Only 2 types of cancer had anything resembling a vague correlation, and so are in the "maybe causes cancer, if we dont determine it was chance, or bias, or sampling error" category.
In other words, anyone claiming we need to start changing our lives based on this is full of it, there is neither a suggested mechanism (non-ionizing radiation, only known bio effects are thermal), nor anything resembling a good study linking cancer to cell phone use.
2) He suggests that the above could also apply to convicts about to be executed, again with consent and without introducing additional suffering
This causes me concern-- I think the slippery slope of "how long will consent be mandatory" might apply here.
4) He suggests that the idea of experimenting on consenting humans would be preferable to experimenting on non-consenting animals.
Assuming of course that consent is always kept as the PRIMARY consideration-- not the fact that they are condemned, or terminally ill. I have no doubt there are many would would suggest that if someone is to be executed anyways, why not perform such and such an experiment on the unwilling prisoner.
Establish that it's perfectly legal to film the police doing their job in a public place.
Laws generally restrict or take away freedoms, not grant them-- at least in a free country. I dont think you want to get into the habit of implying that rights must be granted.
Youll note that neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights grant us any rights; they simply state which rights of ours may not be legislated over (or alternatively, they guard our rights).
I can say with confidence that the majority of cops do not run around shooting folks, as has been implied here. A good number of them may be arrogant jerks, and they may not get disciplined as hard as they should (but then, who does, in governmental jobs?), but the solution is not to rant about how we're no better than authoritarian states like China and Nazi Germany.
No, but calling them nazis, porcine donut eaters, and crooks (blanket statements all); comparing us to WW2 Germany and Communist China; and calling the majority of cops "psychopaths" (all of these, from this very thread) is certainly a bit much.
I have to say, all this foaming mouthed hyperbole really contributes to a reasoned discussion.
When you make sarcastic remarks implying that China is better off in terms of free speech and all the rest, you really only show your ignorance. If this were china, there WOULD be no local story on it; there WOULD be no blogging of it, and all mentions of "miami shooting" would be blocked on google.
Good job on taking a legitimate concern and putting just such a spin on it that it becomes a parody of itself.
Some people simply shouldn't have computers at all, for their own safety.
For years, computer geeks and the media alike have been hollering that everyone needs antivirus, and warning them of the dire dire dangers of not being protected. So now that malware is exploiting that by warning users (as their trusted Antivirus program!) that "we have detected these threats, you better act now", you want to call them stupid for trying to follow all those warnings?
Really, thats a bit much.
But to say it's about to have the same level of infections as Windows?
Lets look at this year's Pwn2Own. Oh look, Safari and OSX hacked with the ability to run arbitrary code off of a website (which could include fetching a shellscript and running it). What about previous years?
Really, where the heck do you mac users get this sense of assurance from? For years, people have been telling you that the platform is no protection from 3rd party security vulnerabilities (java, acrobat, flash); and for years we've been saying that no platform is bug free; and for years we've watched as Mac after Mac falls in Pwn2Own to exploits which "just work".
We've also been saying that "once Mac gets a big enough market share, malware vendors will set their sights on Apple". And guess what, its starting now. Why are you so sure that they wont start using those no-click exploits commercially? And the real question of the day, what security features are you so confident in from OSX that you think Windows 7 and Vista dont have?
The "Install me now" routine pops up, but you have to voluntarily enter your username and password for it to infect you on the Mac. You can become infected on Windows just by surfing the wrong website.
Um, just a few days ago we had a story about how Mac Defender no longer required a password. Userland rootkits are very possible, you know, and a spambot doesnt need admin access to do its thing.
As for "surfing the wrong website", I thought that was the entire scary part of the first 5 articles on this subject-- that the program can autoinstall depending on safari settings. And on windows, the only way to actually get an auto-installed virus is to have out of date plugins; what Mac security feature prevents that sort of exploit again? Oh thats right, none.
Regardless, arent Macs usually the first platform nailed in the Pwn2Own competitions, where the requirement is a no-user-interaction exploit? What on earth makes you feel so confident in OSX? Does it even have any tools to remove bootkits (windows has Combofix, GMER, mbrcheck, etc)?
If you think youre not at parity with Windows, youre mistaken. Windows already has software built in and freely downloadable which eliminates threats. The MSRT runs every time updates are done, and apparently is capable of removing significant threats, and MSSE is quite good-- Ive seen it remove bootkits.
Windows also already has tons of prompts for running files downloaded from the internet (think "executable bit"-- check properties of any exe you download from the internet for the "unblock" button), especially those done from its native browser, and it already has prompts for administrative functions.
Based on the wording of your post, it sounds like you believe Mac has a leg up here. In what way do you believe that to be the case? Right now, the only way Im aware of to infect a Win7 machine running IE9 is thru an outdated Java or Flash plugin. On Mac, those drive-bys "just work", according to the stories we've been seeing.
Malware detection already is; what do you think Windows Defender and the Malicious Software Removal Tool are?
So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating
So would that be like Windows Defender (self updating and never gives popups), the Malicious Software Removal Tool (built into windows updates, self-updates and self-runs), or Microsoft Security Essentials (free for all with a windows update, self-updating, self healing, etc)?
Oh but thats right, its not Apple, so it doesnt count.
Why would they leave? Tax is only being collected on purchases of in state companies to in state residents and that's up for debate.
Potentially, because it would mean that their sales process gets a lot more complicated and expensive. They would be responsible for knowing all the tax details for every county in California, and for having a special Ca-only checkout process.
The legislature should ideally weigh the harms of that against the potential disadvantages of actually collecting a tax they said they were going to tax and those companies should have been budgeting for in the first place...
Or they could rein in their budget. Isnt this the state that recently just spent $100 million on a new school, and wants to outfit all their students with ipads?
And now theres supposed to be some kind of sympathy because theyre (still) running out of money?