Hooters did have a lawsuit over this because the women were hired as servers but the case was settled out of court. So there are legal decisions regarding ability to hire only women as entertainers but no decision is on the legal books about whether it is legal to hire only women as servers. It's possible that they settled the suit knowing that there was a good chance that they could lose.
There are supremely self-confident people who are also wrong sometimes. Even if they're otherwise a smart person. Mistakes can be made. So when these smart confident people are wrong but they refuse to admit it and instead become rude to everyone around them, then they're jerks. I have seen, rarely, people who just cause a meltdown about how everyone is just too dumb to understand them and then a week or two later realize they indeed made a mistake and futilely try to apologize.
These "gun free" zones are just like dangling a worm on a hook, near a fish.
I don't think so. No one's going through a collection of compnay policies looking for a sitting duck to attack. Every single one of these mass shooters does so knowing or hoping that they will not not survive. They don't care if anyone is going to shoot back or not. At the workplace, these shooters are almost always employees, past employees, or a disgruntled acquaintance of an employee. This means that they did not shop around to find a soft target.
We give up tons of freedoms all the time merely to live on the planet with other people. We cannot just wander around doing whatever we want at any time without consequences.
And yet in countries across the world where almost no one owns handguns except for criminals, there were zero shootings in the workplace yesterday. I doubt that responsibly armed people will be effective here. I think this idea is often proposed as a backdoor to loosening gun control rather as a serious solution to a serious problem.
And who is to decide who is responsible or not? I don't want an untrained trigger happy junior militia type eager to shoot back in the direction he thought the shots came from.
I like that idea of it showing up on the device. I'd go further though. If the random password is suitably random, then don't let the user change the password. Instead have a button that creates a new password and displays that.
The snag though, is that now you have to have the actual text of the password stored in the device, which can mean that there's a way to get ahold of that password remotely. And manufacturers aren't going to voluntarily add a complicated secure module when they can just print a sticker instead.
There's a new breed of libertarian that thinks freedom is about letting a corporation do whatever it wants to do. Apparently even citizens believe that corporations are people too.
This is fine if a person's freedoms don't interfere with other people's freedoms. Often there's a collision; once two people meet the freedoms they had as isolated individuals are now diminished (either through physical intimidation by one party or a set of rules and guidelines set up by a government). This is not socialism except by the distorted rewriting of the dictionary by the alt-right. Even many rabid libertarians I know agree that government has a responsibility here.
A government clearly has a vested interest in protecting customers from badly built products, including wifi routers. Not every customer should be required to be a guru or to fully educate yourself. The end customer is freely allowed to ignore safety features if they want (but beware of lawsuits if someone else gets hurt).
Is the web interface on the actual device, or in the back office? I've worked on devices that don't have room to fit even the simplest web interface and with no convenient way to talk to them without specialized equipment. From the devices I've worked on, the security doesn't start in the OS, most small operating systems don't come with security built in and when they do they're inappropriate for your product (ie, you'll rarely find a PKI solution). The OS has no idea what you need as security, what protocols you will be using, how your hardware crypto worksm etc.
Maybe people need to stop thinking of Linux as a "tiny" OS that can be a starting point, when it is gargantuan compared to most small embedded systems. Or maybe people are thinking like "iOS" which has more application framework than actual operating system.
This depends upon what the security is for. Validating passwords sounds like an application front end, most IoT devices usually only talk to other devices. So you need to make sure your networking security is good so that you can't be spoofed, and you can verify certificates from neighboring devices or a back office (pre-shared keys is a recipe for disaster). Then you want security so that your device can't be cloned more cheaply by someone else, so lock down the firmware and encrypt it, etc.
Then there are the generic security issues, not related to crypto or authentication. Such as buffer overflows, allowing a drive-by attacker to reboot your device by exploiting known crashes, etc.
A single OS for IoT is ridiculous. IoT is not like a PC or smartphone where one size fits almost everyone. Every IoT device is unique with unique goals and purposes. What is appropriate for a sensor device that runs unattended for twenty years in the field on a single battery should not have to have the same OS as a consumer IoT device that tells you if your refrigerator is on or not.
Except that the law says the opposite. A male stripper has a legitimate reason to only hire males. The courts allow this exception. You're not going to get that exception if you say "we only want male programmers because some of the guys here are scared of women".
We shouldn't need a lot of government programs if private donors stepped up to the plate. Government should only be a stop gap.
And yet, I've acdtually had people tell me that I was stupid to give money to charities and then later are heard to be bitching about government shouldn't be doing this either.
If someone hates government giving away any money then they should put their money where their mouth is and try to take up the slack.
"Sorry kids, I'm not going to pay for you to go to college. I'm also writing you out of my will. I want to make sure you work hard and grow up struggling every step of the way so that you can be just like me! You'll thank me someday."
Rice is a private university. This is not socialism as the government is not involved in any way. If you feel strongly about this, then feel free to pay full price for tuition yourself rather than bitch about a great opportunity for others.
Let's say in the future your auto stops working. The text on the console says "License Revoked". You tow it to have service and they say "sorry dude, you need to get a new car, it seems you attempted to change the oil by yourself." This amazingly is not as far fetched as it sounds.
The implementation used to be just fine. Copyright lasted for a limited amount of time, enough for the creator to profit from the work. Copyright used to have clear cut allowances for fair use, you could make personal backups, buy the work and then resell it, and so forth.
What we have today is nothing whatsoever like this. The big IP holders have essentially written their own laws.
Copyright law is very clear about some things. For example fair use allows you to make a private backup copy, and this is supported by law in many countries. If you buy a book, you are allowed to scribble in the margins of the pages, tear out pages, add new pages, make photocopies of the pages that you only keep for yourself, and so on. DRM bypasses that exceptions and attempts to prevent them. DRM wants to make it so that the book you bought can vanish at any time (oops, the bookstore wasn't supposed to sell you that book, so the goons will knock on your door and yank it back). DRM will prevent making private backups. DRM will prevent modifying your copy in any way, as well as make sure that your copy will change if the owner wants it to change.
Copyright laws actually place limits on the copyright holders!
So yes, DRM will make it so that your copy can vanish and you're forced to buy it a second time if you want to see the content again. Of course, smart people will refuse to buy it again but that's only a minority of customers.
One big thing that DRM often does is forbid reselling your copy to someone else. This is something protected by law in many countries. You buy a book and then after reading it you are allowed by law to give it to a friend, donate to a library, or sell to a used book store. DRM stops this cold. You can't give away the movie you bought, or the game, or the music. Copyright law has not caught up to this digital technology yet, so the law will allow options that DRM forbids.
To make this all worse, there have been laws passed to forbid figuring out how the DRM works in order to modify it and gain back your legal rights. This is like making it illegal to force a burglar out of your house.
Anyone who thinks that DRM is merely copy protection is naive.
Making a backup for your own personal use is not piracy. DRM goes far beyond copyright law, since DRM is intended as a method to bypass the law and apply more restrictions on the customers than copyright law allows. The law has said that time shifting of content is legal, but DRM has the power to nullify that and forbid time shifting. All it takes to work are governments too lazy or incompetent to push back against these things.
Slashdot Mirror
Fry: "I never thought I would die this way, but I kinda always hoped. "
Hooters did have a lawsuit over this because the women were hired as servers but the case was settled out of court. So there are legal decisions regarding ability to hire only women as entertainers but no decision is on the legal books about whether it is legal to hire only women as servers. It's possible that they settled the suit knowing that there was a good chance that they could lose.
There are supremely self-confident people who are also wrong sometimes. Even if they're otherwise a smart person. Mistakes can be made. So when these smart confident people are wrong but they refuse to admit it and instead become rude to everyone around them, then they're jerks. I have seen, rarely, people who just cause a meltdown about how everyone is just too dumb to understand them and then a week or two later realize they indeed made a mistake and futilely try to apologize.
These "gun free" zones are just like dangling a worm on a hook, near a fish.
I don't think so. No one's going through a collection of compnay policies looking for a sitting duck to attack. Every single one of these mass shooters does so knowing or hoping that they will not not survive. They don't care if anyone is going to shoot back or not. At the workplace, these shooters are almost always employees, past employees, or a disgruntled acquaintance of an employee. This means that they did not shop around to find a soft target.
Why?
We give up tons of freedoms all the time merely to live on the planet with other people. We cannot just wander around doing whatever we want at any time without consequences.
You may think differently, but the constitution is not so clear on this otherwise it wouldn't be a big debate in the courts.
The call for this is because those types of rifles have very little purpose for hunting or self defense.
And yet in countries across the world where almost no one owns handguns except for criminals, there were zero shootings in the workplace yesterday. I doubt that responsibly armed people will be effective here. I think this idea is often proposed as a backdoor to loosening gun control rather as a serious solution to a serious problem.
And who is to decide who is responsible or not? I don't want an untrained trigger happy junior militia type eager to shoot back in the direction he thought the shots came from.
I like that idea of it showing up on the device. I'd go further though. If the random password is suitably random, then don't let the user change the password. Instead have a button that creates a new password and displays that.
The snag though, is that now you have to have the actual text of the password stored in the device, which can mean that there's a way to get ahold of that password remotely. And manufacturers aren't going to voluntarily add a complicated secure module when they can just print a sticker instead.
There's a new breed of libertarian that thinks freedom is about letting a corporation do whatever it wants to do. Apparently even citizens believe that corporations are people too.
This is fine if a person's freedoms don't interfere with other people's freedoms. Often there's a collision; once two people meet the freedoms they had as isolated individuals are now diminished (either through physical intimidation by one party or a set of rules and guidelines set up by a government). This is not socialism except by the distorted rewriting of the dictionary by the alt-right. Even many rabid libertarians I know agree that government has a responsibility here.
A government clearly has a vested interest in protecting customers from badly built products, including wifi routers. Not every customer should be required to be a guru or to fully educate yourself. The end customer is freely allowed to ignore safety features if they want (but beware of lawsuits if someone else gets hurt).
Is the web interface on the actual device, or in the back office? I've worked on devices that don't have room to fit even the simplest web interface and with no convenient way to talk to them without specialized equipment. From the devices I've worked on, the security doesn't start in the OS, most small operating systems don't come with security built in and when they do they're inappropriate for your product (ie, you'll rarely find a PKI solution). The OS has no idea what you need as security, what protocols you will be using, how your hardware crypto worksm etc.
Maybe people need to stop thinking of Linux as a "tiny" OS that can be a starting point, when it is gargantuan compared to most small embedded systems. Or maybe people are thinking like "iOS" which has more application framework than actual operating system.
This depends upon what the security is for. Validating passwords sounds like an application front end, most IoT devices usually only talk to other devices. So you need to make sure your networking security is good so that you can't be spoofed, and you can verify certificates from neighboring devices or a back office (pre-shared keys is a recipe for disaster). Then you want security so that your device can't be cloned more cheaply by someone else, so lock down the firmware and encrypt it, etc.
Then there are the generic security issues, not related to crypto or authentication. Such as buffer overflows, allowing a drive-by attacker to reboot your device by exploiting known crashes, etc.
A single OS for IoT is ridiculous. IoT is not like a PC or smartphone where one size fits almost everyone. Every IoT device is unique with unique goals and purposes. What is appropriate for a sensor device that runs unattended for twenty years in the field on a single battery should not have to have the same OS as a consumer IoT device that tells you if your refrigerator is on or not.
Except that the law says the opposite. A male stripper has a legitimate reason to only hire males. The courts allow this exception. You're not going to get that exception if you say "we only want male programmers because some of the guys here are scared of women".
The 5th type: male Slashdotters with a chip on their shoulder.
We shouldn't need a lot of government programs if private donors stepped up to the plate. Government should only be a stop gap.
And yet, I've acdtually had people tell me that I was stupid to give money to charities and then later are heard to be bitching about government shouldn't be doing this either.
If someone hates government giving away any money then they should put their money where their mouth is and try to take up the slack.
"Sorry kids, I'm not going to pay for you to go to college. I'm also writing you out of my will. I want to make sure you work hard and grow up struggling every step of the way so that you can be just like me! You'll thank me someday."
Rice is a private university. This is not socialism as the government is not involved in any way. If you feel strongly about this, then feel free to pay full price for tuition yourself rather than bitch about a great opportunity for others.
Solder paste and a toaster oven. I'm amazed at what some people can do at home without spending a lot of money.
Sure. Too bad taking a case to court takes a lot of time and money vastly exceeding the cost of the original product.
Let's say in the future your auto stops working. The text on the console says "License Revoked". You tow it to have service and they say "sorry dude, you need to get a new car, it seems you attempted to change the oil by yourself." This amazingly is not as far fetched as it sounds.
The implementation used to be just fine. Copyright lasted for a limited amount of time, enough for the creator to profit from the work. Copyright used to have clear cut allowances for fair use, you could make personal backups, buy the work and then resell it, and so forth.
What we have today is nothing whatsoever like this. The big IP holders have essentially written their own laws.
Copyright law is very clear about some things. For example fair use allows you to make a private backup copy, and this is supported by law in many countries. If you buy a book, you are allowed to scribble in the margins of the pages, tear out pages, add new pages, make photocopies of the pages that you only keep for yourself, and so on. DRM bypasses that exceptions and attempts to prevent them. DRM wants to make it so that the book you bought can vanish at any time (oops, the bookstore wasn't supposed to sell you that book, so the goons will knock on your door and yank it back). DRM will prevent making private backups. DRM will prevent modifying your copy in any way, as well as make sure that your copy will change if the owner wants it to change.
Copyright laws actually place limits on the copyright holders!
So yes, DRM will make it so that your copy can vanish and you're forced to buy it a second time if you want to see the content again. Of course, smart people will refuse to buy it again but that's only a minority of customers.
One big thing that DRM often does is forbid reselling your copy to someone else. This is something protected by law in many countries. You buy a book and then after reading it you are allowed by law to give it to a friend, donate to a library, or sell to a used book store. DRM stops this cold. You can't give away the movie you bought, or the game, or the music. Copyright law has not caught up to this digital technology yet, so the law will allow options that DRM forbids.
To make this all worse, there have been laws passed to forbid figuring out how the DRM works in order to modify it and gain back your legal rights. This is like making it illegal to force a burglar out of your house.
Anyone who thinks that DRM is merely copy protection is naive.
Making a backup for your own personal use is not piracy. DRM goes far beyond copyright law, since DRM is intended as a method to bypass the law and apply more restrictions on the customers than copyright law allows. The law has said that time shifting of content is legal, but DRM has the power to nullify that and forbid time shifting. All it takes to work are governments too lazy or incompetent to push back against these things.