I know just being picky, but no one doubts that climate change is behind changes in climate. I don't think anyone doubts climate change. Now perhaps some doubt anthropogenic climate change, technically this summary doesn't mention that.
"It is never a positive sign when one of the world's leading security firms mentions how the world is currently in the "Dark Ages" of computer security. " Well what to do you expect a security firm to say? "There is no need for our products."?
I thought this was interesting so I searched around a bit and it seems this idea has been dis proven.Wired had a piece also. Some interesting tidbits in there like "For example, women’s speech includes more personal pronouns (I, you, she), while men’s uses more quantifiers (one, two, some more). If someone listening to a voice interface hears a male using feminine phrasing, they are likely to be distracted and distrustful. "
Just been thinking about this for a while. I think there is a standard of intent, or maybe the good old reasonable person standard. If I paint my house, or wear a certain shirt, or I tell Facebook I read a book, there is either an intent to share that information, or a reasonable expectation that people will observe the color of my house and perhaps tell their friends. In cases like this one cannot claim ownership of the information. But what about information that isn't intended to be shared, or could not reasonably be expected to be public? For instance, if Facebook infers that I am gay from what sort of books I read and post about, I don't think Facebook can claim those data, those are still mine.
Exactly how is it YOUR data? If I tell you my name, is that my data or yours? People learn things about me all the time, but that doesn't mean I own a part of their brains. I don't like all this spying, agree with you there. But ultimately how can we say that any information one can observe is the property of the observed and not the observer?
That is really interesting. Maybe the others are already rate free, and I just assumed otherwise since pandora was the one specifically mentioned when i signed up. I use that anyway so i never looked into much further.
I think the gist of this complaint,/. headline aside, is that zero-rating harms open competition and violates the FCC's policies towards net neutrality. The impact on poor people isn't the focus of it. An example might be how T-Mobile doesn't count Pandora traffic against the cap. While I might prefer to use another music service, I use Pandora since it doesn't count against the cap. Thus putting competitors at a disadvantage. Of course, large established players always have all sorts of advantages.
Modded funny, but I have said this seriously. I'd rather have the Chinese government spying on me than my own (USA). This isn't a moral comparison between the two, but is merely because I am much further off the target scope for PRC gov than the USA.
It's not the exception. The parent's assertion is flawed. A coder who also has management skills will get promoted if she wants. A coder with no management skills won't get promoted. Just like almost any other field.
Agree. I mentioned elsewhere it might make sense for MS to disable macros by default except maybe in enterprise editions. Or maybe even better, simply leave it to enterprise sysadmins to enable via GPO.
So when you said " I almost never use macros so I'd be happy to have a way to disable them quasi-permanently." I took that to mean you were not aware the option existed. Apologies for misunderstanding.
Marcus Ranum said something like (paraphrase) "Security is only as good as it has to be" MS is only addressing this since it has to, just like when it finally disabled macro access to send email and read Outlook contacts after years of email worms. The bad guys will move on to the next poorly secured feature, and when it gets bad enough MS will then fix that. It's the cycle of life.
The current versions of Office allow users to globally disable macros with no popup to enable them. But of course this is rarely used since ignorant (just a description, not a condemnation) users don't want to break anything. Perhaps MS could disable macros completely by default for non-enterprise editions.
No shock, I just heard NYPD deputy director on the radio making the claim in an interview that "going dark" with encrypted communications apps is how these attackers were able to stay off the police radar despite all the recent scrutiny. And also no shock, the so-called journalist doing the interview didn't question that statement at ll.
How long until we hear how the Belgian police could not anticipate and prevent this attack because the attackers used data encryption? Whether it is true or not doesn't even matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I know just being picky, but no one doubts that climate change is behind changes in climate. I don't think anyone doubts climate change. Now perhaps some doubt anthropogenic climate change, technically this summary doesn't mention that.
I'm not clear on why this 'needs' to be considered. Have people been living in fear of a robot asking them to touch its butt?
The next generation will revive telnet, then demand encryption
"it makes pretty much everything you do afterwards, including buying his products, completely pointless" LOL well said!
"It is never a positive sign when one of the world's leading security firms mentions how the world is currently in the "Dark Ages" of computer security. " Well what to do you expect a security firm to say? "There is no need for our products."?
I want to see him fight the Aquabat Commander
I thought this was interesting so I searched around a bit and it seems this idea has been dis proven. Wired had a piece also. Some interesting tidbits in there like "For example, women’s speech includes more personal pronouns (I, you, she), while men’s uses more quantifiers (one, two, some more). If someone listening to a voice interface hears a male using feminine phrasing, they are likely to be distracted and distrustful. "
you mean you aren't using a web browser to post to Slashdot?
Just been thinking about this for a while. I think there is a standard of intent, or maybe the good old reasonable person standard. If I paint my house, or wear a certain shirt, or I tell Facebook I read a book, there is either an intent to share that information, or a reasonable expectation that people will observe the color of my house and perhaps tell their friends. In cases like this one cannot claim ownership of the information. But what about information that isn't intended to be shared, or could not reasonably be expected to be public? For instance, if Facebook infers that I am gay from what sort of books I read and post about, I don't think Facebook can claim those data, those are still mine.
Exactly how is it YOUR data? If I tell you my name, is that my data or yours? People learn things about me all the time, but that doesn't mean I own a part of their brains. I don't like all this spying, agree with you there. But ultimately how can we say that any information one can observe is the property of the observed and not the observer?
The premise seems to be that the US government controls the Internet
US intelligence has a long history of working with criminals. They aren't a law enforcement agency.
I expect this is as much about protectionism for domestic Internet sites/businesses as it it about some futile effort at information control
Worse than that, I need to get into the car to charge the phone.
That is really interesting. Maybe the others are already rate free, and I just assumed otherwise since pandora was the one specifically mentioned when i signed up. I use that anyway so i never looked into much further.
I think the gist of this complaint, /. headline aside, is that zero-rating harms open competition and violates the FCC's policies towards net neutrality. The impact on poor people isn't the focus of it. An example might be how T-Mobile doesn't count Pandora traffic against the cap. While I might prefer to use another music service, I use Pandora since it doesn't count against the cap. Thus putting competitors at a disadvantage. Of course, large established players always have all sorts of advantages.
Modded funny, but I have said this seriously. I'd rather have the Chinese government spying on me than my own (USA). This isn't a moral comparison between the two, but is merely because I am much further off the target scope for PRC gov than the USA.
It's not the exception. The parent's assertion is flawed. A coder who also has management skills will get promoted if she wants. A coder with no management skills won't get promoted. Just like almost any other field.
Agree. I mentioned elsewhere it might make sense for MS to disable macros by default except maybe in enterprise editions. Or maybe even better, simply leave it to enterprise sysadmins to enable via GPO.
So when you said " I almost never use macros so I'd be happy to have a way to disable them quasi-permanently." I took that to mean you were not aware the option existed. Apologies for misunderstanding.
Marcus Ranum said something like (paraphrase) "Security is only as good as it has to be" MS is only addressing this since it has to, just like when it finally disabled macro access to send email and read Outlook contacts after years of email worms. The bad guys will move on to the next poorly secured feature, and when it gets bad enough MS will then fix that. It's the cycle of life.
The current versions of Office allow users to globally disable macros with no popup to enable them. But of course this is rarely used since ignorant (just a description, not a condemnation) users don't want to break anything. Perhaps MS could disable macros completely by default for non-enterprise editions.
You can disable them via a setting for anything except trusted locations, and manage this setting via GPO also.
No shock, I just heard NYPD deputy director on the radio making the claim in an interview that "going dark" with encrypted communications apps is how these attackers were able to stay off the police radar despite all the recent scrutiny. And also no shock, the so-called journalist doing the interview didn't question that statement at ll.
How long until we hear how the Belgian police could not anticipate and prevent this attack because the attackers used data encryption? Whether it is true or not doesn't even matter.