You can trademark things that exist in the real world, and have been around forever; Microsoft has trademarked "Windows" in the context of computing. That doesnt mean they can sue anyone with a window, or even anyone who used "Windows" commercially; it would have to meet the criteria for trademark infringement, which includes being in the same industry and being potentially misleading to consumers.
Im not exactly clear what comments are leading you to believe Im anti-science, but this sounds a heck of a lot like an ad hominem. Speaking of arguments not based on evidence and rational thought.... your counter to my points here is "you said things I disagree with in a different context, therefore you must be wrong here"?
Basic income for all would create a whole host of other problems. Employment insurance is somewhat better, but Im sure if I could come up with a bunch of problems with it, too.
The big issue is you absolutely do not want to enable those ousted workers to simply stop caring: if at all possible, they should retrain in another industry, and any "solution" which removes the incentive to do so is a bad one. I do not know how you balance the two, but this is an area where the law of unintended consequences can bite you hard.
It is not false security. Bitlocker means that you cannot load a linux image and bypass all of the Windows security controls; attempt to do so, and the TPM will refuse to release the keys to decrypt the drive. This means that you have to boot the system up and deal with Windows credentials in order to do anything.
It is apparently possible to manually extract the keys from TPM, but is also apparently quite difficult (requiring months in a lab), so for the purpose of securing laptop data against theft, it is effective. If your concern is more severe (nation-state attacks) you can enable 2-factor and store a certificate on a USB drive.
I personally prefer the Truecrypt style of "really long password" because its not something that can be stolen-- but there are a number of benefits to Bitlocker.
It would be nice, however, if Slashdot had picked up in the biggest piece of Tech news in the last several months and actually reported TrueCrypt's demise.
My initial comment was somewhat meant to be humorous, and not to disparage displaced workers. If anything, it was aimed at the all too common attitude on slashdot that we SHOULD hold back technology to save those jobs.
You are correct that often those displaced workers may get the short end of the stick while society as a whole gets the benefit, and you're not wrong that we could probably do something to ease the ending of an industry-- but I dont think that thats a good objection to a new technology.
So the 100 million christians in the highly atheistic (culturally, buddhist) China today-- those were all raised during the cultural revolution by Christian parents?
I did read it, or at least the top 4-5 paragraphs before the level of absurdity got too high.
The fundamental point hes making seems to be that if even 0.1% of men rape, its valid to tell all men to stop raping because everyone knows who we're really talking about. Its a bad point, and the fact that he spends another 30 or so paragraphs making it doesnt change the fact.
The article you linked has a ton of issues. The biggest beef I have with its claim that it sidetracks the conversation to say "not all men are like that' simply because some are. But the context of such discussions is as a "problem" that urgently needs addressing; in that case, whether the thing is common or extremely rare would make an enormous difference in how we approach it.
One might ask whether we should have a hashtag #StopWomenDrowningBabies or something; certainly the thing happens, so clearly this is an important discussion to have, right? Except that its quite rare, and while its bad, its not a "problem" (AFAIK) that we as a society need to (or realistically could) "fix".
I dont know what the statistics are on rape, or how big the problem is, nor do I really want to discuss that (because I am not equipped to do so). But if someone wants to come out and say "men need to stop raping" I think its appropriate to point out that this isnt a universal phenomenon and that "men" arent the "enemy"-- because thats how it very often comes across.
The power loom also opened up far more jobs in the long run.
Shipping crates were also fiercely fought, by longshoremen, over the fear that neat and orderly shipping containers would cut the need for workers to sort out shipments and bring them ashore. But that same development has encouraged a far more global market, and today there are huge numbers of workers employed in (for example) Amazon, Newegg, etc warehouses and in supporting infrastructure, partly due to how cheap it is to ship things and how much the online marketplace as a whole has exploded.
As always, progress in one area-- even if it means a temporary reduction in jobs-- almost always results in the creation of new ones elsewhere. It also generally improves the quality of life of society as a whole, even when individual workers may lose their jobs. It is fine to be concerned for those who may lose their jobs due to progress, and to assist when possible in an exit strategy for an industry. Its absurd to wonder whether we should stifle innovation to protect a dying or obsolete industry.
What you're doing is called begging the question. You're assuming that the bible was written after the fact and backdated to give the appearance of prediction-- and then using that assumption to prove that it must not be predictive. Which is-- ironically enough-- yet another belief without evidence.
Because, as we know, every advance in the last 200 years that has ended an industry has caused an increase in starvation, a decrease in education, and generally poorer quality of life.
Whats that you say, its the exact opposite? Oh, well then.
Do they have any idea what is going on? Are they properly informed?
That is far, far, far out of scope for a standards discussion. That is an issue for activists to take up, not for the HTTP 2.0 discussion. As of right now, the consumers do not care, and the developers this is targetted at would not want privacy controls. You would be forcing the metaphorical grandma across the street and generally pissing everyone off in the process. Thats not how you write a successful standard.
None of what you describe is really an issue for HTTP to be solving. You could argue that cookies have to go, but they fulfill functions today (logon persistence) and there are already methods for minimizing their abuse (disabling third / first party cookies, deleting them, private browsing). I really dont get how a discussion on a transport protocol is the proper place for political or content discussions.
They have no clue at all about the underlying principles at work, and just blindly repeat the same things their parents did out of indoctrinated habit.
Speaking of having no clue of the underlying workings of things..
What is your basis for stating that "the average joe" has no reason other than blind indoctrination for their religious beliefs?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that they went on to state that they are not aware of any such court orders for their tech shipments.
As I read it they are outright claiming that they have not allowed the NSA to inspect any of their Cisco shipments.
Kind of helps if you keep it in context and include this part:
"UPS is not aware of any court orders from the NSA seeking to inspect technology-related shipments."
I dont think you understand how trademarks work.
You can trademark things that exist in the real world, and have been around forever; Microsoft has trademarked "Windows" in the context of computing. That doesnt mean they can sue anyone with a window, or even anyone who used "Windows" commercially; it would have to meet the criteria for trademark infringement, which includes being in the same industry and being potentially misleading to consumers.
Im not exactly clear what comments are leading you to believe Im anti-science, but this sounds a heck of a lot like an ad hominem. Speaking of arguments not based on evidence and rational thought.... your counter to my points here is "you said things I disagree with in a different context, therefore you must be wrong here"?
Basic income for all would create a whole host of other problems. Employment insurance is somewhat better, but Im sure if I could come up with a bunch of problems with it, too.
The big issue is you absolutely do not want to enable those ousted workers to simply stop caring: if at all possible, they should retrain in another industry, and any "solution" which removes the incentive to do so is a bad one. I do not know how you balance the two, but this is an area where the law of unintended consequences can bite you hard.
There's always Jetico's BestCrypt.
Anyone volunteering to take the hit just so we can all find out who's behind TC?
It is not false security. Bitlocker means that you cannot load a linux image and bypass all of the Windows security controls; attempt to do so, and the TPM will refuse to release the keys to decrypt the drive. This means that you have to boot the system up and deal with Windows credentials in order to do anything.
It is apparently possible to manually extract the keys from TPM, but is also apparently quite difficult (requiring months in a lab), so for the purpose of securing laptop data against theft, it is effective. If your concern is more severe (nation-state attacks) you can enable 2-factor and store a certificate on a USB drive.
I personally prefer the Truecrypt style of "really long password" because its not something that can be stolen-- but there are a number of benefits to Bitlocker.
It would be nice, however, if Slashdot had picked up in the biggest piece of Tech news in the last several months and actually reported TrueCrypt's demise.
Yea, you clearly did not watch X-Men 2.
My initial comment was somewhat meant to be humorous, and not to disparage displaced workers. If anything, it was aimed at the all too common attitude on slashdot that we SHOULD hold back technology to save those jobs.
You are correct that often those displaced workers may get the short end of the stick while society as a whole gets the benefit, and you're not wrong that we could probably do something to ease the ending of an industry-- but I dont think that thats a good objection to a new technology.
So the 100 million christians in the highly atheistic (culturally, buddhist) China today-- those were all raised during the cultural revolution by Christian parents?
Sorry, doesnt hold water.
I did read it, or at least the top 4-5 paragraphs before the level of absurdity got too high.
The fundamental point hes making seems to be that if even 0.1% of men rape, its valid to tell all men to stop raping because everyone knows who we're really talking about. Its a bad point, and the fact that he spends another 30 or so paragraphs making it doesnt change the fact.
The article you linked has a ton of issues. The biggest beef I have with its claim that it sidetracks the conversation to say "not all men are like that' simply because some are. But the context of such discussions is as a "problem" that urgently needs addressing; in that case, whether the thing is common or extremely rare would make an enormous difference in how we approach it.
One might ask whether we should have a hashtag #StopWomenDrowningBabies or something; certainly the thing happens, so clearly this is an important discussion to have, right? Except that its quite rare, and while its bad, its not a "problem" (AFAIK) that we as a society need to (or realistically could) "fix".
I dont know what the statistics are on rape, or how big the problem is, nor do I really want to discuss that (because I am not equipped to do so). But if someone wants to come out and say "men need to stop raping" I think its appropriate to point out that this isnt a universal phenomenon and that "men" arent the "enemy"-- because thats how it very often comes across.
The power loom also opened up far more jobs in the long run.
Shipping crates were also fiercely fought, by longshoremen, over the fear that neat and orderly shipping containers would cut the need for workers to sort out shipments and bring them ashore. But that same development has encouraged a far more global market, and today there are huge numbers of workers employed in (for example) Amazon, Newegg, etc warehouses and in supporting infrastructure, partly due to how cheap it is to ship things and how much the online marketplace as a whole has exploded.
As always, progress in one area-- even if it means a temporary reduction in jobs-- almost always results in the creation of new ones elsewhere. It also generally improves the quality of life of society as a whole, even when individual workers may lose their jobs. It is fine to be concerned for those who may lose their jobs due to progress, and to assist when possible in an exit strategy for an industry. Its absurd to wonder whether we should stifle innovation to protect a dying or obsolete industry.
"What, whats wrong with storing each day's sales data going back several years in separate worksheets in a single excel document?"
Clearly the solution is to have those people write custom code to do the job rather than using spread sheets.
What you're doing is called begging the question. You're assuming that the bible was written after the fact and backdated to give the appearance of prediction-- and then using that assumption to prove that it must not be predictive. Which is-- ironically enough-- yet another belief without evidence.
computers are also:
1. hackable
Only if they do something exceptionally dumb, like expose the internal controls to a wireless network.
Not much time,
Probably 0.5-1 second. Given thats 25-50% of the recommended follow distance, thats quite a lot.
A quick post on google's support group is all that's needed to stop the car in an emergency.
FTFY
Because, as we know, every advance in the last 200 years that has ended an industry has caused an increase in starvation, a decrease in education, and generally poorer quality of life.
Whats that you say, its the exact opposite? Oh, well then.
AAAAAAAnd out come the luddites. Damn those power looms, taking away our jobs and consigning half the country to starvation!
Do they have any idea what is going on? Are they properly informed?
That is far, far, far out of scope for a standards discussion. That is an issue for activists to take up, not for the HTTP 2.0 discussion. As of right now, the consumers do not care, and the developers this is targetted at would not want privacy controls. You would be forcing the metaphorical grandma across the street and generally pissing everyone off in the process. Thats not how you write a successful standard.
None of what you describe is really an issue for HTTP to be solving. You could argue that cookies have to go, but they fulfill functions today (logon persistence) and there are already methods for minimizing their abuse (disabling third / first party cookies, deleting them, private browsing). I really dont get how a discussion on a transport protocol is the proper place for political or content discussions.
They have no clue at all about the underlying principles at work, and just blindly repeat the same things their parents did out of indoctrinated habit.
Speaking of having no clue of the underlying workings of things..
What is your basis for stating that "the average joe" has no reason other than blind indoctrination for their religious beliefs?