they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance
People keep saying this, yet I've never seen any evidence it's true. In fact, on the contrary, here in the UK at least, Uber are licensed like any other private hire company. Not to mention the fact that, just about everywhere, running a business without appropriate liability insurance is illegal (and stupid) anyway.
Actually David Attenborough graduated from Cambridge with a degree in natural sciences (specialising in geology and zoology). And, actually, I think that he makes for a far better model of science communicator than these modern loud mouths/wannabe philosophers.
Except, unlike with guns, the internet is multinational and there's no reason to believe that the government is going to (or even can) force foreign companies with no UK offices to comply. So unlike guns, even if it's illegal, just about every innocent person will continue to use strong encryption (TLS with PFS, for example) on a daily basis - potentially without even realising it.
The terrorists have no problem with breaking the law to kill and murder people on kamikaze missions... but I'm sure they're nice reasonable people who will stop using encryption if we make it illegal.
Oh, and the actual study in question had nothing to do with the Kuna people. I don't know whether the/. submitter or the CBC journalist got that wrong, though.
It's hard to judge how good the research was because neither tfs nor any of the 3 tfas actually linked to the research paper.
And I don't think you read my comment either. I never said the work was rigorous, I said there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice (emphasis added). I was responding to the AC who seemed to think that the source of funding magically altered the quality of the research without providing any evidence. And you haven't refuted me just by disagreeing.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you have no idea how science works. For starters researching natural products, as these scientists did, is a very fertile starting ground when searching for a "cure for cancer". Unfortunately you seem to have bought into the myth that only big glamorous research is valuable, ignoring the facts that, by definition, we don't know what the outcome of research will be until we do it and that most glamorous research will probably mostly involve work that looks "mediocre" in value to you.
Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"
I love the idea that this somehow invalidates the research. The researchers investigated what they could get funding to investigate, there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice. Presumably the results are valid and therefore valuable. Further, presumably this research wouldn't have been done otherwise so we've got some additional research we wouldn't have done otherwise. So what if it supports someone's interests? We all benefit because now we know more about the world around us and what is, and isn't, good for our bodies. Now go and take your ad hominems elsewhere.
You know, I can imagine someone saying something similar to this to the Wright brothers. Just give the scientists, engineers and time the ability to work their magic and there's every chance someone will be able to turn it into a viable business.
Second time in a day I've re-read a post I was replying to and realise I missed the point of the parent. No more/. for me until I've properly woken up in the mornings!
Except a Time Machine is just a NAS with a custom OS. As already discussed many of these ransomwares will also encrypt files on any mapped drives you have write access too. It would certainly be possible for Apple to harden time machine against such an attack (as discussed above, by allowing write access to create new files but not to modify existing ones unless, say, using SSH or a web based interface or specifically elevating permissions after successfully challenging the user) but I've not heard anything to suggest that is the case.
Turns out, when Microsoft tried this, they really annoyed a lot of their customers and took an awful lot of stick for it. Even from people who would consider themselves fairly technical. Users don't want you to put hoops between them and what they (think they) want to do.
Typical user scenario:
Clicks malware.exe email attachment.
Email client: Email attachments of this type this type are dangerous. Are you sure you want to run it?
*yes*
MSE/Windows defender: Virus detected. Quarantine file?
*nah... seems legit*
Windows: Filez from teh internetz can be dangerous. Continue?
*Yes. How dare you question me Bill Gates!?!*
UAC: File malware.exe from some dude on the internet wants admin access to your computer. Allow?
*Stop getting in my way stupid computer*
Windows: Install unsigned drivers? Guidance: Basically no unless your plugging in exotic or old hardware.
*Get the **** out of my way piece of *** I bet that *** Bill Gates thinks he knows better than me*
MSE/Windows defender: ***DEFCON1DEFCON1***
*whatevs. I need those novelty smileys and cool web search*
Malware: Mwhahahaha installs pop ups, steals bank details, encrypts files emails child pr0ns to the police etc. etc.
*Wah.... f***cking stupid Bill Gates your software's **** I hate Microsoft. Plus whenever I want to do something it asks me questions like I'm stupid and it knows better*
They hate the dialogues etc. and just click through them. Don't get me wrong I'm all for warning dialogues, but they exist already and they don't help a large proportion of "average users".
And, before some smartypants points it out, I know MS have since said that UAC was designed to annoy users to encourage developers to write apps that don't require admin privileges. A good warning system *should* be annoying though, and hopefully fairly infrequently triggered by innocent actions (as it is now that UAC has been around for a while and developers have fixed their apps (and MS have tweaked it a little)).
Biology and related sciences?
At my uni (not in the US, but I think our two countries are comparable) hemistry (at UG and PG level, perhaps less so above because it will take time to filter through) is 50/50. Similarly for stats and the medical schools, among others. Source: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/stati...
Free Speech in the states has never been interpreted as a right... to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
OK, where to start? Firstly it's to "falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"; secondly it wasn't law, it was part of a judges opinion; thirdly that opinion was given while suppressing a very clear cut case of protected political speech; fourthly that precedent has been overturned by later judgements; fifthly the judge who wrote that accepted that it's wrong and, sixthly, in many cases shouting fire in a crowded theatre, even falsely, is protected speech. Please stop using that quote.
The service that I prefer and the service that I signed up for are not the same thing. They might not know what I prefer, but they sure do know what I signed up for (the internet, which in the absence of any qualifiers, means the whole, entire internet). I would prefer that the ISP considers me capable of instigating changes if I decide that I want to change the service, rather than treating me like an incapable 3 year old.
The online account username and password (i.e. billing and support; this is the one I store in LastPass and, since you only use it on the ISP's website I would never consider that I might need it when I don't have internet access) and the connection username and password (i.e. what the router uses to connect to ADSL) have been two separate things with every ISP I have been with.
In fact I just checked my old ISP's support pages and they didn't even use login credentials for the connection for most of their customers (those on LLU exchanges): http://service.o2.co.uk/IQ/SRV...
I don't doubt that this has been excellent publicity, but I don't think, when you consider the facts, this can be a calculated marketing campaign (the initial pulling and then reinstating of the film may have been, but the hacking and the threats? No).
Where does that leave the claims that NK threatened Sony?
Nobody has made such claims, at least nobody that knows what they were talking about. Anonymous internet users threatened cinema chains. If Sony were behind these threats they could be prosecuted for making a true threat or blackmail. Thus I think it was unlikely to have been Sony.
What is the possibility that this is all part of a clever marketing campaign to get all of us to see the film.
If only unreleased films had been released that might be a valid suggestion. However by releasing private employee data Sony would have exposed themselves to significant reputational damage and legal liability (regardless if they were caught or not). If caught both of those would be astronomical. So no. Sony may have capitalised on it (although their response gives the impression of unprepared chaos, rather than planned marketing campaign).
Sony said it was far too dangerous to release the film...
No they didn't. They said they were pulling it because cinemas weren't showing it:
“In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25 theatrical release” source
If it wasn't an intentional marketing campaign, should it have been?
Bar release of private employee data etc. and threats to life and limb then yes, it could have been very effective. But I (and most people) don't like been lied to so if they got caught it would probably backfire spectacularly. (side note: this is the first high profile data security incident I can think of that has elicited sympathy for the victim company rather than anger that their security wasn't up to scratch. Is this because people are recognising that these are increasingly inevitable and the real bad guys are the criminals, and we're reaching a turning point in the way customers and the media view such breaches, or is it because everyone's favourite comedy villain, NK, was involved?)
tl;dr: The hack was real, although may not have been NK. Same for the threats. It's been good publicity for the film but Sony's response has been too incoherent to have been planned.
If you have a problem with cleanfeed than I'm totally with you on that, but people seem to be ignoring that mandatory system and whining about optional filters.
I do have a problem with Cleanfeed, but I don't think you need to have a problem with Cleanfeed to have a problem with this.
Originally, at least, all content blocked by Cleanfeed (theoretically, there are vast issues of accountability and due process; I'm using Cleanfeed here to mean the IWF watchlists, not the BT filtering technology which has been extended to other blocks, e.g. torrent sites, on BT's network) was already clearly illegal. On the other hand these optional filters are the product of the government beating the private companies with the stick of proposed regulation/legislation to force them to control access to completely and totally legal content in a way that their customers do not want. All the big players already gave the option of "network level" (apologies for the more or less meaningless term, but it's a favourite of Dave et al.) filtering to customers who wanted it.
The government is trying to control access to a wide range of completely legal content (and it is the government, make no mistake) - that is what people are angry about. It doesn't matter if it's optional I shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of saying I want to view porn (regardless of the actual question asked that is how the question will be read in everybody's minds) to visit websites with, for instance, political viewpoints that aren't widely accepted (or, indeed, to view porn - whether or not I want to do that is nobody else's business, unless I voluntarily choose to make it so by raising the subject with them). Anyone who contracts an internet connection is a responsible adult (even if they then give access to that connection to an under 18) able to decide, without state interference, what they do or do not want to see/filter and what measure they need to take before allowing minors under their charge access. And anyone who follows UK news can no doubt see the day when having the filters disabled will be used as evidence in a kangaroo court trying someone for terror, paedophilia or just being a nasty pervert...
Slashdot Mirror
they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance
People keep saying this, yet I've never seen any evidence it's true. In fact, on the contrary, here in the UK at least, Uber are licensed like any other private hire company. Not to mention the fact that, just about everywhere, running a business without appropriate liability insurance is illegal (and stupid) anyway.
Actually David Attenborough graduated from Cambridge with a degree in natural sciences (specialising in geology and zoology). And, actually, I think that he makes for a far better model of science communicator than these modern loud mouths/wannabe philosophers.
When that happens I'm out of here. I'll go and find a country worth living in.
Except, unlike with guns, the internet is multinational and there's no reason to believe that the government is going to (or even can) force foreign companies with no UK offices to comply. So unlike guns, even if it's illegal, just about every innocent person will continue to use strong encryption (TLS with PFS, for example) on a daily basis - potentially without even realising it.
The terrorists have no problem with breaking the law to kill and murder people on kamikaze missions... but I'm sure they're nice reasonable people who will stop using encryption if we make it illegal.
Actually the "one another" is correct. https://english.stackexchange....
I saw this. What kind of crazy squirrels does America have that can digest glass? Seriously, I can't imagine it does their insides any good!
*insert high fibre diet joke here*
Sorry, here's the full text link: http://rdcu.be/bUz8
Oh, and the actual study in question had nothing to do with the Kuna people. I don't know whether the /. submitter or the CBC journalist got that wrong, though.
It's hard to judge how good the research was because neither tfs nor any of the 3 tfas actually linked to the research paper.
And I don't think you read my comment either. I never said the work was rigorous, I said there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice (emphasis added). I was responding to the AC who seemed to think that the source of funding magically altered the quality of the research without providing any evidence. And you haven't refuted me just by disagreeing.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you have no idea how science works. For starters researching natural products, as these scientists did, is a very fertile starting ground when searching for a "cure for cancer". Unfortunately you seem to have bought into the myth that only big glamorous research is valuable, ignoring the facts that, by definition, we don't know what the outcome of research will be until we do it and that most glamorous research will probably mostly involve work that looks "mediocre" in value to you.
Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"
I love the idea that this somehow invalidates the research. The researchers investigated what they could get funding to investigate, there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice. Presumably the results are valid and therefore valuable. Further, presumably this research wouldn't have been done otherwise so we've got some additional research we wouldn't have done otherwise. So what if it supports someone's interests? We all benefit because now we know more about the world around us and what is, and isn't, good for our bodies. Now go and take your ad hominems elsewhere.
You know, I can imagine someone saying something similar to this to the Wright brothers. Just give the scientists, engineers and time the ability to work their magic and there's every chance someone will be able to turn it into a viable business.
Second time in a day I've re-read a post I was replying to and realise I missed the point of the parent. No more /. for me until I've properly woken up in the mornings!
I just re-read your comment. And now I feel like an idiot.
Except a Time Machine is just a NAS with a custom OS. As already discussed many of these ransomwares will also encrypt files on any mapped drives you have write access too. It would certainly be possible for Apple to harden time machine against such an attack (as discussed above, by allowing write access to create new files but not to modify existing ones unless, say, using SSH or a web based interface or specifically elevating permissions after successfully challenging the user) but I've not heard anything to suggest that is the case.
Turns out, when Microsoft tried this, they really annoyed a lot of their customers and took an awful lot of stick for it. Even from people who would consider themselves fairly technical. Users don't want you to put hoops between them and what they (think they) want to do.
Typical user scenario:
Clicks malware.exe email attachment.
Email client: Email attachments of this type this type are dangerous. Are you sure you want to run it?
*yes*
MSE/Windows defender: Virus detected. Quarantine file?
*nah... seems legit*
Windows: Filez from teh internetz can be dangerous. Continue?
*Yes. How dare you question me Bill Gates!?!*
UAC: File malware.exe from some dude on the internet wants admin access to your computer. Allow?
*Stop getting in my way stupid computer*
Windows: Install unsigned drivers? Guidance: Basically no unless your plugging in exotic or old hardware.
*Get the **** out of my way piece of *** I bet that *** Bill Gates thinks he knows better than me*
MSE/Windows defender: ***DEFCON1DEFCON1***
*whatevs. I need those novelty smileys and cool web search*
Malware: Mwhahahaha installs pop ups, steals bank details, encrypts files emails child pr0ns to the police etc. etc.
*Wah.... f***cking stupid Bill Gates your software's **** I hate Microsoft. Plus whenever I want to do something it asks me questions like I'm stupid and it knows better*
They hate the dialogues etc. and just click through them. Don't get me wrong I'm all for warning dialogues, but they exist already and they don't help a large proportion of "average users".
And, before some smartypants points it out, I know MS have since said that UAC was designed to annoy users to encourage developers to write apps that don't require admin privileges. A good warning system *should* be annoying though, and hopefully fairly infrequently triggered by innocent actions (as it is now that UAC has been around for a while and developers have fixed their apps (and MS have tweaked it a little)).
It isn't hard to find the name of the company in question, though... http://slashdot.org/firehose.p...
Biology and related sciences? At my uni (not in the US, but I think our two countries are comparable) hemistry (at UG and PG level, perhaps less so above because it will take time to filter through) is 50/50. Similarly for stats and the medical schools, among others. Source: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/stati...
sounds suspiciously like... (clue: bs)
Free Speech in the states has never been interpreted as a right ... to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
OK, where to start? Firstly it's to "falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"; secondly it wasn't law, it was part of a judges opinion; thirdly that opinion was given while suppressing a very clear cut case of protected political speech; fourthly that precedent has been overturned by later judgements; fifthly the judge who wrote that accepted that it's wrong and, sixthly, in many cases shouting fire in a crowded theatre, even falsely, is protected speech. Please stop using that quote.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
The service that I prefer and the service that I signed up for are not the same thing. They might not know what I prefer, but they sure do know what I signed up for (the internet, which in the absence of any qualifiers, means the whole, entire internet). I would prefer that the ISP considers me capable of instigating changes if I decide that I want to change the service, rather than treating me like an incapable 3 year old.
The online account username and password (i.e. billing and support; this is the one I store in LastPass and, since you only use it on the ISP's website I would never consider that I might need it when I don't have internet access) and the connection username and password (i.e. what the router uses to connect to ADSL) have been two separate things with every ISP I have been with.
In fact I just checked my old ISP's support pages and they didn't even use login credentials for the connection for most of their customers (those on LLU exchanges): http://service.o2.co.uk/IQ/SRV...
Long live clever marketing campaigns.
I don't doubt that this has been excellent publicity, but I don't think, when you consider the facts, this can be a calculated marketing campaign (the initial pulling and then reinstating of the film may have been, but the hacking and the threats? No).
Where does that leave the claims that NK threatened Sony?
Nobody has made such claims, at least nobody that knows what they were talking about. Anonymous internet users threatened cinema chains. If Sony were behind these threats they could be prosecuted for making a true threat or blackmail. Thus I think it was unlikely to have been Sony.
What is the possibility that this is all part of a clever marketing campaign to get all of us to see the film.
If only unreleased films had been released that might be a valid suggestion. However by releasing private employee data Sony would have exposed themselves to significant reputational damage and legal liability (regardless if they were caught or not). If caught both of those would be astronomical. So no. Sony may have capitalised on it (although their response gives the impression of unprepared chaos, rather than planned marketing campaign).
Sony said it was far too dangerous to release the film...
No they didn't. They said they were pulling it because cinemas weren't showing it:
“In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25 theatrical release” source
If it wasn't an intentional marketing campaign, should it have been?
Bar release of private employee data etc. and threats to life and limb then yes, it could have been very effective. But I (and most people) don't like been lied to so if they got caught it would probably backfire spectacularly. (side note: this is the first high profile data security incident I can think of that has elicited sympathy for the victim company rather than anger that their security wasn't up to scratch. Is this because people are recognising that these are increasingly inevitable and the real bad guys are the criminals, and we're reaching a turning point in the way customers and the media view such breaches, or is it because everyone's favourite comedy villain, NK, was involved?)
tl;dr: The hack was real, although may not have been NK. Same for the threats. It's been good publicity for the film but Sony's response has been too incoherent to have been planned.
If you have a problem with cleanfeed than I'm totally with you on that, but people seem to be ignoring that mandatory system and whining about optional filters.
I do have a problem with Cleanfeed, but I don't think you need to have a problem with Cleanfeed to have a problem with this.
Originally, at least, all content blocked by Cleanfeed (theoretically, there are vast issues of accountability and due process; I'm using Cleanfeed here to mean the IWF watchlists, not the BT filtering technology which has been extended to other blocks, e.g. torrent sites, on BT's network) was already clearly illegal. On the other hand these optional filters are the product of the government beating the private companies with the stick of proposed regulation/legislation to force them to control access to completely and totally legal content in a way that their customers do not want. All the big players already gave the option of "network level" (apologies for the more or less meaningless term, but it's a favourite of Dave et al.) filtering to customers who wanted it.
The government is trying to control access to a wide range of completely legal content (and it is the government, make no mistake) - that is what people are angry about. It doesn't matter if it's optional I shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of saying I want to view porn (regardless of the actual question asked that is how the question will be read in everybody's minds) to visit websites with, for instance, political viewpoints that aren't widely accepted (or, indeed, to view porn - whether or not I want to do that is nobody else's business, unless I voluntarily choose to make it so by raising the subject with them). Anyone who contracts an internet connection is a responsible adult (even if they then give access to that connection to an under 18) able to decide, without state interference, what they do or do not want to see/filter and what measure they need to take before allowing minors under their charge access. And anyone who follows UK news can no doubt see the day when having the filters disabled will be used as evidence in a kangaroo court trying someone for terror, paedophilia or just being a nasty pervert...