Actual security specialists understand that the idea of "more secure" means less "convenience" or less "civil liberties" is a false dichotomy. This position is more likely to come from political groups or salesmen of "screening machines".
(S)he's not saying they're opposites. (S)he's saying that security experts won't care about convenience or liberties. There are some changes that could be made to current TSA behavior that would clearly increase security at a clear detriment to both convenience and liberty -- (s)he is saying that security experts would tend to favor those ideas if no other ideas produced similar or better levels of security.
I was under the impression that, thanks to teacher's unions, a teacher pretty much can't get fired unless (s)he has sex with a student or something (and even then they just get suspended from active teaching while some committee "reviews" their actions). Or are you not from the US?
The buck stops at the Oval Office (and no, it doesn't matter that Harry S. Truman is no longer president; just because no other president has had the spine to admit it doesn't mean the buck didn't stop then and there and doesn't stop there and now.).
I know it's popular to say that the Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, but that's simply not true.
The Republicans are at least competent when it comes to pushing through their agenda in spite of the will of the people.
They're not exactly the same. They're two different arms of a single political party: The Lobbying Party. The US has had a one-party system since Vietnam or so.
Because if you don't ship a browser with the OS most people would never find the Internets. I never understood this from an anti-competitive perspective. If I remember correctly, a significant factor in the MS case was that you couldn't uninstall the browser, which I again, don't really understand. A browser is integral to most computers. If you don't ship the OS with a browser, most users wouldn't be able to get on the net to find a browser. I suppose that not allowing an FTP client on the system would be next? The whole "distributing IE with Windows" is anti-competitive is predicated on the fact that if IE exists on the system most users will be too stupid to make their own choices, which in fact may be true, but I'm not a big fan of protecting people from their own stupidity by making life harder for others. I HATE IE. Do I want Windows to ship without it? No. That would make downloading Firefox that much more difficult. Using this logic cars shouldn't ship with stereos installed because that is anti-competitive vis-a-vis aftermarket manufacturers.
That has nothing to do with what the EU is actually asking MS to do (it isn't going to be another Windows XP N). The EU is going to have Windows come with a "which browser do you want to use?" screen when you first launch "the internet" (i.e. the world wide web (i.e. a browser)).
The blind are a small market, but they need to be seen to care about them (you can figure out the pronouns on your own). Hence, they put no effort into actually making a useful text-to-speech/blind-accessible interface, instead focusing on having something to point to and say "look, we care about the blind!"
Because Apple's vetting has a step in it where they verify the identity of the author. Pull that trick, and people will wonder why their accounts were compromised, and surveys of the users will find that everybody affected used your app. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
FTFY. I don't believe that the great recession has been quite that bad.
If Verizon does that, AT&T will be quick to point it out in the ads. Somehow, I don't think Verizon is quite that stupid, although I could be totally wrong.
Viewing of source is necessary but insufficient: An OSS project/license must satisfy OSI's criteria (identical to Debian free software guidelines). "Open source" is a trademark of OSI, who fortunately are not evil AFAICT.
Slashdot Mirror
Actual security specialists understand that the idea of "more secure" means less "convenience" or less "civil liberties" is a false dichotomy. This position is more likely to come from political groups or salesmen of "screening machines".
(S)he's not saying they're opposites. (S)he's saying that security experts won't care about convenience or liberties. There are some changes that could be made to current TSA behavior that would clearly increase security at a clear detriment to both convenience and liberty -- (s)he is saying that security experts would tend to favor those ideas if no other ideas produced similar or better levels of security.
I was under the impression that, thanks to teacher's unions, a teacher pretty much can't get fired unless (s)he has sex with a student or something (and even then they just get suspended from active teaching while some committee "reviews" their actions). Or are you not from the US?
There is location data on where the phone is while it is turned on.
Cheap prepaid phone.
I didn't RTFLink, so I don't know, but I'd guess it involves/is vaguely similar to onion routing?
My point is that 1984 is fictional literature and nothing like the current state of government. It's over-the-top hyperbole.
The title is over-the-top hyperbole. Is the rest?
IIRC there are 3 million articles but only ~2k "featured" articles.
I just RTFA'd; when I was reading I said to myself "there are holes in SSL and TLS? WTF when did this happen?! Why didn't I hear about it anywhere?"
Nevermind
In Re Bilski?
It looks to me like this is more threatening to MythTV and the like than to Linux itself. But then I didn't RTFA, so I wouldn't know.
The buck stops at the Oval Office (and no, it doesn't matter that Harry S. Truman is no longer president; just because no other president has had the spine to admit it doesn't mean the buck didn't stop then and there and doesn't stop there and now.).
I know it's popular to say that the Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, but that's simply not true.
The Republicans are at least competent when it comes to pushing through their agenda in spite of the will of the people.
They're not exactly the same. They're two different arms of a single political party: The Lobbying Party. The US has had a one-party system since Vietnam or so.
Because if you don't ship a browser with the OS most people would never find the Internets. I never understood this from an anti-competitive perspective. If I remember correctly, a significant factor in the MS case was that you couldn't uninstall the browser, which I again, don't really understand. A browser is integral to most computers. If you don't ship the OS with a browser, most users wouldn't be able to get on the net to find a browser. I suppose that not allowing an FTP client on the system would be next? The whole "distributing IE with Windows" is anti-competitive is predicated on the fact that if IE exists on the system most users will be too stupid to make their own choices, which in fact may be true, but I'm not a big fan of protecting people from their own stupidity by making life harder for others. I HATE IE. Do I want Windows to ship without it? No. That would make downloading Firefox that much more difficult. Using this logic cars shouldn't ship with stereos installed because that is anti-competitive vis-a-vis aftermarket manufacturers.
That has nothing to do with what the EU is actually asking MS to do (it isn't going to be another Windows XP N). The EU is going to have Windows come with a "which browser do you want to use?" screen when you first launch "the internet" (i.e. the world wide web (i.e. a browser)).
I figured it was that "Drake Equation" thingy (along with the fact that there's no "Math" section).
I could be wrong, though.
That's a good idea. We should have a math section.
Right. Any story about a mathematician finding a girlfriend should be in the science fiction section.
Any story about the Drake Equation belongs in the SF section.
The blind are a small market, but they need to be seen to care about them (you can figure out the pronouns on your own). Hence, they put no effort into actually making a useful text-to-speech/blind-accessible interface, instead focusing on having something to point to and say "look, we care about the blind!"
There exist braille books.
I think the difference is that you didn't use any of the fancy-but-correct terms he used.
(You can feel free to make the expected joke about Congress being a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast if you like).
I'd go for the other way around given the amount of money Congress gave to the various telcos previously...
Market Forces will not ride to the rescue on this one.
Duh! The telco market is one of the least competitive markets in the US!
Because Apple's vetting has a step in it where they verify the identity of the author. Pull that trick, and people will wonder why their accounts were compromised, and surveys of the users will find that everybody affected used your app. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
FTFY. I don't believe that the great recession has been quite that bad.
Want to unlock this app, $5 a month please.
If Verizon does that, AT&T will be quick to point it out in the ads. Somehow, I don't think Verizon is quite that stupid, although I could be totally wrong.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the important part: You need to be able to redistribute (un)modified versions of the program in some form or another.
Viewing of source is necessary but insufficient: An OSS project/license must satisfy OSI's criteria (identical to Debian free software guidelines). "Open source" is a trademark of OSI, who fortunately are not evil AFAICT.
AFAICT the summary is talking about companies whose bread-and-butter is FOSS.