One of the neurotic wannabe bosses around here tried to use that line. "I think there are too many chiefs not enough Indians." And then he awkwardly looked at the one Indian guy on the team, had a nervous laugh, and tried explain that it was just a saying. He got written up for it. I don't think that the Indian guy would have even noticed had it not been for the awkward fumbling after the comment.
The straw ignited, and the wad shot about 12 or 15 feet across the room.... He never explained why he did it, to me, or the rest of the class, but I learned the lesson as clearly as I ever learned any.
That chemistry is radical, science is awesome, and explosions can be performed in a controlled and safe manner?
and immediately resigned to not screw around with trying to make explosives
You dun goofed kiddo. Are you a chemist right now? Are you? NO? yeah, that's right, you dun goofed. Tell me you're at least an engineer. Don't tell me you're an IT wage slave.
I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting that there can be a thing as too much truth too fast? To the extent that it would... what? Cause a war and/or zombies?
Now, I understand the problem with selective truth. If you have person X and person Y and you air all the dirty laundry of person X, it doesn't mean that person Y is all roses and rainbows. He'll look a lot better than person X and he'll benefit from the exposure, albeit unfairly.
But as far as "dumping everything" what the well would you call the massive dump that Manning released? The afghan war logs, , and the the diplomatic cables were a pretty massive load of the wrongdoing of the USA. If being caught red handed spying on our UN allies, using foreign aid as a beating stick so third-world nations would join the Copenhagen Accord, writing Canadian copyright laws, buying little boy sex slave for afghan warlords, knowing pfizer was trying to blackmail a lawyer in a multi-million dollar suit, helping McDonalds get more favorable judges in their suit, and just generally being a dick around the world. If none of that caused the major war-clusterfuck you're worried about, I highly doubt that the NSA being found out of spying on US citizens without a warrant will be that big of a concern. You know, on a global-thermonuclear-war sort of scale.
Seriously, the other major political players have no expectation of privacy against our NSA and CIA. It's literally their job to go spy on them. It's still internationally illegal, and balls-to-the-wall wrong, but expected. They simply don't have the power to stop it. The NSA spying on US citizens is OUR OWN forces breaking OUR OWN laws. Furthermore, we have very important people being on record telling congress that no such spying is occurring. That perjury. Remember when that was a felony that would get you sent to prison? Or even fired?
Damn Small Linux is a modern distro. It's one made to work on things like 486's. The nice thing about Linux and the open/free format of the environment is that it's AMAZINGLY agile and adjustable. It makes the term IT RUNS LINUX into a catchphrase. Do try to keep up.
Seriously, I think you need to read up on how these technologies work.
I really do. Because I actually don't know much about, well, most of this. I'm a C developer working in avionics, not some sysadmin who has to harden networks. But the fact that your claims are refuted by the most basic of internet searches show that you're full of shit.
My point was that on average, Windows is more secure than most Linux distributions
A contentious argument, but one you're free to make. I'd suggest you put forth some sort of justification for that statement.
Due to the mitigating technologies done right...
And what such technologies would those be? MAC, ASLR, DEP, and UAC? I've shown that Linux incorporates those mitigating technologies. Your argument is invalid. (Pft, "Done right"? Come on)
...and increased focus on security...
Sheet marketing fluff.
...resulting in few vulnerabilities.
Well Linux developers take longer to close the vulnerabilities, but look at the numbers. There are a LOT less vulnerabilities for Linux. (in 2012 at least). Furthermore, the entire report was a piece of FUD made by a MS partner who was trying to spin it best they could. I have no doubt that MS has had an increased focus on security. Unfortunately, they like their marketers more than their engineers, and they're working that propaganda machine hard. And apparently you've fallen for it. Seriously, just ask around.
Forget the old boogymen of terrorists and nihilists. Those are classic punching bags. The sort that everyone hates and everyone can get on board with hating. Don't like them? They're a terrorist! That's how it goes. Lumping activists in there is only a slight deviation from the typical script. It's effective when talking to republicans while democrats have a kinder view of the label. (Although, hell, the teapartiers have started to turn those tables)
And forget the low-brow insult to twenty-somethings. Sure, it's uncouth and he's punching below the belt. He's specifically doing it to antagonize. He WANTS it to happen. He wants to poke that bear so he can have a raging bear to justify his bear-repellant.
Forget all that. No, this is worse. Catch this part:
"But certainly Mr Snowden has created quite a stir among those folks who are very committed to transparency and global transparency and the global web, kind of ungoverned and free. And I don't know that there's a logic between trying to [punish] America or American institutions for his arrest, but I hold out the possibility. I can sit here and imagine circumstances and scenarios, but they're nothing more than imaginative."
He's specifically calling out TRANSPARENCY GROUPS. And he's kinda sorta maybe suggesting the possibility that they'll go "punish America". He can't actually tell us why that would happen but oh he's imagining it. It's like a wet dream where all of his illegal deeds throughout his life become justified and he's worshipped as a hero for stopping "those evil transparency groups". It's one where he doesn't go to sleep at night worrying that he'll be fired, tried, and thrown in prison for violating the law.
That's what you have to focus on here. The man is in FEAR of transparency. This is a sign of a bad man.
If you want to run something on old hardware I'd HIGHLY suggest Linux. "It runs Linux" is a fucking CATCHPHRASE around here. You can't possibly be suggesting that the poor of Saudi Arabia install "a more recent version of Windows" on their 486. Now, say you're in Jeddah and a poor streetrat comes up to you with an old PC and asks you how to have secure communications with is grandmother in the USA. What OS do you suggest he use?
Yeah, SELinux has mandatory access control. Ubunutu, which is moderately common, has had AppArmor since 2009. Which implements MAC. Now, AppArmor does some things different from SELinux, and I'd naievely say that SELinux probably takes the more secure route. But as far as feature shopping goes, LINUX HAS MAC.
ALSR and DEP are in the kernel. It's not a distro thing.
Or, even if it was enabled in the kernel the distro did not provide apps compiled with appropriate support.
Wut? Ok, ok, there might be some compatibility issues when a program expects itself to be loaded in a specific location, but otherwise programs ask and get the space they get from the kernel. It's a seperate layer. The application layer shouldn't NEED support for ALSR because that operates on a layer below it. What the fuck are you talking about? Likewise for DEP. If your program depended on a buffer overflow to operate YOU SHOULD STOP USING IT and the distro should kick it to the curb and never look back.
I never said these are cutting edge security features by the way....nice strawman....
Oh, my pardons, I thought you were talking about the current state of Microsoft Windows security vs Linux security.
Finally, Using a more recent windows version is actually good for security. ASLR, DEP, a rudimentary MAC implementation, UAC...despite what people say, Windows is actually one of the better operating systems security wise these days. Not just because of the preventive technology that most other OS's don't have (OS X has a lacking and broken implementation, most linux distros are not as complete in their implementations..), but because Microsoft started taking security seriously and vulnerabilities are rare these days.
Oh, that's right. You were. But alas, perhaps the term "cutting edge" was just a bit too much for you. Let me rephrase that:
Jesus son, have you been under a rock since Vista came out? Do you really think these are security features that make Windows stand out? This is a small shopping list of security features from the back of a VISTA cardboard box. You know, back when such things came in boxes. In the olden times. For old people. Oldy.
Many of the people using Tor in restrictive countries won't have the luxury of switching away from Windows
Which country are you specifically talking about? Is it illegal to run Linux somewhere? To the best of my knowledge the only people working on keeping people from installing Linux are the ones trying to push secureboot and UEFI. That's Microsoft and friends. The whole "war on general computing" thing seems either overblown or in it's infancy. Seriously, who don't have the luxury of switching away from Windows? Are you talking about wage-slaves or something? Who would use TOR at work?
Secondly, yeah, it's an issue with an old browser. Yes, updating the browser is the correct solution. That didn't stop the people at TOR from suggesting you switch to Linux. And it certainly didn't stop the linux circle-jerk here at Slashdot. It's just kind of expected.
Finally. While a more recent windows version is a good security move as opposed to less recent windows versions, as long as you can stomach metro, I'll be sticking with Linux when it comes to security. You know, because of history:
Address Space Layout Randomization: Linux had it in June 2005. Vista had it in 2007. (FYI, this is OLD) Data Execution Prevention: Both Linux and Windows had it in 2004. (OLD) Mandatory Access Control: Distributions of Linux have it. Vista has something like it. User Account Control: Also a Vista thing. And it was universally reviled. Typical users will just click through it, in anger. The later versions might be less annoying, but it's more or less equivalent to making the user prefix sudo ahead of important commands. Which, you know, has been around for a little while in Linux.
Jesus son, have you been under a rock since Vista came out? Is this really what you think is cutting edge security features?
All your choices might be bad by mid-November when the ballots are already printed. But it'd take an awfully cynical view to claim that all the choices were bad during the primary election. And I don't think anyone would say that all your choices for the 2016 election are bad right now. Because at this point you could push, campaign, analyze, and interrogate damn near anyone.
I mean, you know, if you actually care about politics, the US government, or being a good citizen. Hey, I understand, it's hard to Google all this stuff. And there are SO many names to remember. And football is on the TV right over there with your top 7 favorite teams and whatnot. So sure, sure, just let someone else make that decision. They'll narrow it down for you by November 2016.
I personally see a capability within these slides that the US needs to have and would be scared if we didn't.
Seriously? You'd be scared if the US government didn't have the ability to browse through the everyone's email contents for the last 3 days?
Maybe you meant other capabilities. Maybe you meant the ability to have a deep search vs a shallow search on whatever data they happen to have. Maybe you're focusing on the technological capabilities that people would expect from an intelligence organization. Meanwhile, the rest of us are shitting our pants about how blatantly illegal this operation is.
Yes. We'd generally assume that, with a warrant, from a real judge, who gave it because there was probable cause and all that jazz, with a record of who got what warrant to search for what and where, the investigators would be able to quickly get the email, phone, whatnot records from corporations about nefarious people. That's a good thing. It's legal. It helps catch the bad guy.
For me I have no expectation of privacy when on the Internet.
Own and carry a phone? You're always on the Internet. Likewise, do you have any "expectation of privacy" when you're on a restroom shitter? Those stall doors weren't REALLY designed for privacy. Anyone can stare at you through the cracks or duck their head under the stall. Creepy as hell, but do you think it should be illegal? Do you have an expectation of privacy while shitting? FYI, while email is sent in clear-text, you and I have an expectation of privacy with email... at least for 180 days per the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.... huh... that's kinda disturbing.
how does a government with limited human resources investigate potential threats?
With a warrant. Not a dragnet. See: checks and balances.
Over 300 terrorists captured
Define terrorist. Do you mean those sheep they lead to slaughter by talking them into BECOMING terrorists and accepting fake bombs from undercover agents? Do you mean the Muslim charity that gave money to an organization who helped children, oh and also some terrorists drink from that well? It'd be nice if I could trust them when they claim 300 terrorists were captured thanks to this program, but they have redefined terrorism to the point I can no longer recognize it.
I ask slashdotter's what is the best way for a government to find threats to it's citizens in this digital age?
Find evidence, follow leads, GET A FUCKING WARRANT.
Should the Internet be hands off for our government? False dichotomy. The government should not keep track of what everyone is doing on the Internet and allow unsupervised surveillance of the masses. Nor should the government ignore the Internet.
Yeah, that happens when you pay for little boys to be raped. Sunlight and transparency is a bitch isn't it?
The things which were "damaging to US foreign policy" were the exact sort of abuses that the USA has to stop doing. Because otherwise we are the bad guys. If you want them to stop doing blatantly evil things, you have to punish them when they do it. Letting them get away with murder just reenforces that behavior, and leads to more murders.
You're bitching about "due diligence" when the man exposed children being systematically raped and US corporations abusing powers they shouldn't even have to screw over third world nations. He exposed blatantly illegal intent of spying on U.N. leaders, our supposed allies.
But yeah sure, he violated the US government privacy and told some of their secrets that nobody cared about. I'm sure that justifies locking him in solitary for a year, forcing him awake from 5am (7am on weekends, woo!) to 8pm, taking away his glasses, then taking away his clothes and forcing him to present himself naked every morning. You know, suicide watch. He could have hurt himself with that underwear and flipflops. At least the torture lessened when the lawyers complained.
I agree with you, he released a lot of information which exposed the US governments less desirable actions, actions which should be looked at in great depth.
However,my issue with Manning is that he also released a lot of other documents. 250,000 cables, for example.
Those diplomatic cables had some of the most damning material!
Did you miss the one where US taxpayer's money is being funneled through Dyncorp to purchase little boy sex slaves on the behalf of the US military as party favors for Afghan warlords? And this is similar to their behavior in Bosnia in 1999. So FYI, the US has a department for buying and selling sex-slaves. No, it doesn't really matter that it's a separate company.
That's the most vile one I know of off the top of my head. There's also evidence that Monsanto and Pfizer use US diplomats to badger governments so they get out of lawsuits. And Monsanto is just as evil as you'd expect. Damn straight this should be "looked at in depth" and then people should be thrown in prison for life. And it makes Manning look like a true patriot. We've GOT to fix this. We HAVE to be the good guys.
Hey, I get what you're saying. That he shouldn't have just leaked all this information without making sure it wasn't endangering anyone. And that's a mountain of work. So thank goodness that he went to a professional leaking site like Wikileaks to handle it all. (Too bad they trusted Guardian journalist David Leigh with the encryption key. He fucked up and it all got released underacted after about a year.)
In case anyone was wondering about those numbers, it was about $0.5 billion to Solyndra vs $7 billion to Halliburton.
Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt. Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million.[19] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid.
Solyndra failed because it couldn't compete with China who, arguably, dumped solar cells to kill such competition. Halliburton on the other hand, is a war profiteer that sent their CEO into politics to secure a contract.
The problem is that they only fine corporations because there isn't any "one" to imprison
Yes there is. Probably more than one. Someone gave the order to perform an illegal activity. Someone followed the order to perform an illegal activity.
Listen, Halliburton being a corporation doesn't give them some sort of mystical disembodied super-power. It's a group of people. The same as a mafia gang, plumber's union, government, military troop, or book club. If someone in your book club decided to go murder their mother, you don't get thrown in jail. If the head of the plumbers union uses the union's funds, equipment, and contacts to gas a housing complex, and no-one else was in on it, then only he goes to jail. If the the general orders his troops to go on a raping spree, and they all do it, then they all go to jail. If the mafia boss orders Jimmie to hold a package and he doesn't know it's drugs, and you can't convince a jury that he knew it was drugs, then Jimmie walks free. The same as if your murderous book club member told you to hang onto this package until the next meeting. It's just easier to convince a jury when it's a criminal organization as opposed to a book club.
Sometimes everyone is guilty. Everyone knows that the group as a whole is violating a law. In that case, EVERYONE IS GUILTY. At least of being complicit or an accessory. This is why it's a crime to to not report a crime. This is why our troops are oath-bound to question orders.
Corporations aren't magic shields that stop criminal investigations. At least they're not supposed to be outside of a dystopian cyberpunk novel.
Someone did something illegal. Investigate and throw them in jail.
. . . right. Yeah, I didn't think about that too hard did I? Ignore that part about secrets and authenticators.
Sorry, I had it in my head that it was a one-way communication of their program to... whatever it is they plan on having. I think they want both ends to send and receive audio. So two people have their cell phones kiss for a while.
I think it's interesting how many alarm bells this post sets off in my head.
First off, it's a long format Slashdot article, and it's not an "ask slashdot" nor a book review. Slashdot TV? is that still a thing? Why are they selling this company? It reads like an ad and uses the language thereof: "Imagine", "envision", "a way to facilitate", "Initially with Bitcoin", And.... is that trying to spin the shoddy website as a good thing? And the format of the video and interview is also just... cheap.
Is their idea worthwhile? Are there already ways to achieve the same results? Is illliri's way enough better than existing mobile device security systems that it's worth exploring? And would it be better, not just for the world in general, but as a way to help illiri's founders make a living if their software was open source?
Then there's the obvious problem with the basic fundamental gimmick: Anyone with a recorder nearby now has you password. The thing about secrets that are supposed to stay between you and the authenticator is that the transfer point is REALLY important. Pin numbers, passwords and all that jazz are a pain in the ass, but a noise? Anyone with a audio recorder now has your password. If you can put a device up next to their mic, then there are much more secure ways to have your device hand it some information.
This is just so.... so... this is a joke right? Some sort of meta-humor on slashdot?
It's after a lot of people died, that survivors have to figure out how to be more efficient.
Well that's depressing. I don't know about imperialism and the revolutions being a massive die-off event. But every revolution is going to be a bit different. I mean, this one is coming on awfully fast. Arguably, we had the computer revolution, and the Internet revolution back to back.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Well the good news is that the worse things get the better the chances of finding a solution... right?
Bread and circuses don't really cost all that much.
No, it does cost a lot
Are we both on the same page about what constitutes bread and circuses? Keeping food prices low (farm subsidies, McDonalds, etc) and keeping the rabble entertained: TV, Internet, drama. The sort of fear that Huxley had in "Brave New World". You don't have to keep everyone happy, you just have to keep enough content enough so they don't feel the need to commit suicide attacking the establishment. Bread and circuses are a HELL OF A LOT cheaper than using tanks and SWATS to keep the population in line. Ask the Soviet Union. And maybe I'm a cynical old bastard, but bread and circuses are probably cheaper than just supplying a middle-class lifestyle to the masses. I know that psychologically, not enough people will work if they don't profit from it, so handing out a cushy lifestyle simply won't work. One of those human needs is to be needed.
Why does it have to be done en-mass? (or is that a fat-joke?) People can go out and find new jobs. Read wikipedia, take courses, google how to fix an AC unit, play with arduinos, devour the hideous beast that is Sharepoint documentation and come in like a blessed angel to scour the demons that plague small businesses because they were fooled by the twisted Gates of hell and skewered on lance point. This is, retraining can be done piecemeal. Which makes sense because not everyone is a super-happy to be going from a factory job to learning binary.
I don't see extended unemployment insurance.
Huh... that's a thing. But no, unemployment benefits have been extended. A lot. Which makes sense when the job market is hard. But really, I don't think insurance for this is a good idea. Lose the job, go get another. Whatever you can get. One of the details that gets glossed over post-recession is that a lot of people swallowed their pride and became underemployed. Which sucks. But it sucks less then being unemployed.
So after a decade or two of absolute misery governments might be so broken and debt ridden as to be unable to do whatever it is that should have been done a decade or so earlier.
Why does it have to be the government to do something about this? And remember, robots don't make the nation poor. Robots, and job-stealing technology in general, make for a more efficient society. The nation makes more money.
That bad things happen to good people and that the government can buy an instant recovery if the money is handed to the people productively (if you can call building munitions productive).
Right, the government can go massively into debt as a pay-day loan to bail out the citizens. Raising the taxes on the rich didn't hurt either. A world war and lynch mobs against anyone not patriotic enough keeps the industrialists from complaining too much. As long as the government can borrow enough, and pays off the debt when times are good, then it all works. Keynes economics. It works.
This was the generation that then voted in welfare and banking reforms vowing never again.
And they always seem to forget about every 30 years. It came back in the 1980's and again at 2007. The trigger already happened. Did you miss that econopocalypse that Obama got elected into? And yeah, lessons learned. We threw a TON of money at the problem and adverted a collapse. What's troubling about the 2007 fiasco is that the hammer really didn't come down on the banks that caused this problem. WTF?
Where there are people, there are cops. Where there are cops, there are raids. Where there are raids, there are botched raids. The map is useful for finding and referencing incidents in a particular area, but it is not to be used for retail purposes. Civilization is a tradeoff that has more or less been worth the annoyance of having to deal with all these fuckers around me.
I see robots feeding capitalism to an extreme point while eating jobs like a 70's Japanese city eating monster.
Much like computers ate paper-pusher jobs in the 90's, industrialism ate cottage industry in the 1800's, and rotating crops in the pre-reniasiance. Turns out that when you free up a swath of the populace from having to work they find something else to do. The first generation often wants to smash some looms though. You're absolutely right that it's painful.
It's no different with robots than with the singularities of the past. No one saw where the jobs were going to be created. Sure, SOME people are going to be needed to work in the factories, but the entire point of the factory line is that it takes less people to crank out 10 zillion wicker baskets in a week. Likewise, SOME people are going to be needed to maintain the robots. Hell, the world needs more programmers. Let them eat code.
So what do you do with 60% of the population who are permanently out of the economic picture?
Well, historically they're ignored as they don't have any cash for others to deprive them of. If there's a rebellion or such, the powers that be brutally crush it. But I'd be a big fan of having them do something else. "Retraining". And hopefully their kids will learn a skill/trade/profession that will have legs. And we can ALWAYS use more artists, scientists, and uuuugggghhh... politicians.
Do you punish them for being poor?
No, being poor is usually quite enough.
Do you let them just vote bread and circuses?
Well... yes. This is a democracy. Bread and circuses don't really cost all that much.
I don't think that there will be any easy solutions
Agreed.
but one of the keys to economics is consumption not production.
Wut? I believe both are equal halves of the equation.
With Robotic production we may hit this semi-utopian "Post scarcity" scenario.
Well, sorta. I mean, 80% of us no longer have to break our backs in the fields growing potatoes by hand so the nobles can eat. All in all this IS a post-scarcity scenario, compared to the past. But yes, the overall trend of technological progress will continue and less people will have to work to fulfill the basic needs of everyone else.
So the key to the economy will be focusing on getting people to consume?
Well sure. If you're the one with production. But the key to economic success has ALWAYS been getting people to consume what you're producing. Even if that's potatoes, iStoppedCaringGizmos, or the service of fitting slot A into tab B on an assembly line for 8 hours a day. I make code. Specifically, I help companies sort their shitty projects into something that can be changed without imploding. That's the service I produce, they consume it. It works pretty well for both of us.
How do you get people with no money to consume?
You break their kneecaps. Or threaten to. I've heard that's how slumlords milk rent out of deadbeats. But in general, you just don't. Selling to poor people is a tough business model.
You give them money. Then they get to participate in the economy and maybe they don't just decide that the guillotine was an excellent lever for social change.
And here is the point that we have a MASSIVE disagreement. Look, I'm all for compassion and welfare for those who truly need it. But at NO POINT does giving away money make economical sense. It can make political sense, and it can keep the guillotine away, but that's at the expense of the economy. Seriously, there are plenty of ways for the poor masses to get an education, learn a trade, find an unfulfilled need, and make a buck. No, it's often not the glamorous lifestyle that the American dream duped you into stri
Citation needed. What reason do you have to believe that food quality has diminished in the last 50 years?
I'll offer an opinion that a phrase like "RoundUp Ready" in a seed stock description doesn't sound either tasty or nutritious...
And that's a wholly meaningless and pointless distinction when it comes the the quality of food. While your comment probably doesn't warrant the board jumping down your throat, your comment is off-topic and does not contribute to the discussion.
Your post is actually a good example by itself of the issue with vitamins. The scientific and factual points of the effects of vitamins get more or less completely ignored in favor of it's marketing capability. Just like a discussion about the actual physical aspects of round-up ready crops gets blithely ignored when it gets to consumers because... "it doesn't *sound* tasty or nutritious"...
Yeah... the marketers, salesmen, charletans, quacks, and the consumers who get fooled by even the most basic routine gimicks and gobble up that stuff can go get bent....And they can go starve to death in the dark with their gullet full of sawdust and broken dreams.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the neurotic wannabe bosses around here tried to use that line. "I think there are too many chiefs not enough Indians." And then he awkwardly looked at the one Indian guy on the team, had a nervous laugh, and tried explain that it was just a saying. He got written up for it. I don't think that the Indian guy would have even noticed had it not been for the awkward fumbling after the comment.
Yeah, that's right, keep walking boy. You know when you dun been told.
The straw ignited, and the wad shot about 12 or 15 feet across the room. ... He never explained why he did it, to me, or the rest of the class, but I learned the lesson as clearly as I ever learned any.
That chemistry is radical, science is awesome, and explosions can be performed in a controlled and safe manner?
and immediately resigned to not screw around with trying to make explosives
You dun goofed kiddo. Are you a chemist right now? Are you? NO? yeah, that's right, you dun goofed.
Tell me you're at least an engineer. Don't tell me you're an IT wage slave.
I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting that there can be a thing as too much truth too fast? To the extent that it would... what? Cause a war and/or zombies?
Now, I understand the problem with selective truth. If you have person X and person Y and you air all the dirty laundry of person X, it doesn't mean that person Y is all roses and rainbows. He'll look a lot better than person X and he'll benefit from the exposure, albeit unfairly.
But as far as "dumping everything" what the well would you call the massive dump that Manning released? The afghan war logs, , and the the diplomatic cables were a pretty massive load of the wrongdoing of the USA. If being caught red handed spying on our UN allies, using foreign aid as a beating stick so third-world nations would join the Copenhagen Accord, writing Canadian copyright laws, buying little boy sex slave for afghan warlords, knowing pfizer was trying to blackmail a lawyer in a multi-million dollar suit, helping McDonalds get more favorable judges in their suit, and just generally being a dick around the world. If none of that caused the major war-clusterfuck you're worried about, I highly doubt that the NSA being found out of spying on US citizens without a warrant will be that big of a concern. You know, on a global-thermonuclear-war sort of scale.
Seriously, the other major political players have no expectation of privacy against our NSA and CIA. It's literally their job to go spy on them. It's still internationally illegal, and balls-to-the-wall wrong, but expected. They simply don't have the power to stop it. The NSA spying on US citizens is OUR OWN forces breaking OUR OWN laws. Furthermore, we have very important people being on record telling congress that no such spying is occurring. That perjury. Remember when that was a felony that would get you sent to prison? Or even fired?
Damn Small Linux is a modern distro. It's one made to work on things like 486's. The nice thing about Linux and the open/free format of the environment is that it's AMAZINGLY agile and adjustable. It makes the term IT RUNS LINUX into a catchphrase. Do try to keep up.
Seriously, I think you need to read up on how these technologies work.
I really do. Because I actually don't know much about, well, most of this. I'm a C developer working in avionics, not some sysadmin who has to harden networks. But the fact that your claims are refuted by the most basic of internet searches show that you're full of shit.
My point was that on average, Windows is more secure than most Linux distributions
A contentious argument, but one you're free to make. I'd suggest you put forth some sort of justification for that statement.
Due to the mitigating technologies done right...
And what such technologies would those be?
MAC, ASLR, DEP, and UAC? I've shown that Linux incorporates those mitigating technologies. Your argument is invalid. (Pft, "Done right"? Come on)
...and increased focus on security...
Sheet marketing fluff.
...resulting in few vulnerabilities.
Well Linux developers take longer to close the vulnerabilities, but look at the numbers. There are a LOT less vulnerabilities for Linux. (in 2012 at least). Furthermore, the entire report was a piece of FUD made by a MS partner who was trying to spin it best they could. I have no doubt that MS has had an increased focus on security. Unfortunately, they like their marketers more than their engineers, and they're working that propaganda machine hard. And apparently you've fallen for it. Seriously, just ask around.
Forget the old boogymen of terrorists and nihilists. Those are classic punching bags. The sort that everyone hates and everyone can get on board with hating. Don't like them? They're a terrorist! That's how it goes. Lumping activists in there is only a slight deviation from the typical script. It's effective when talking to republicans while democrats have a kinder view of the label. (Although, hell, the teapartiers have started to turn those tables)
And forget the low-brow insult to twenty-somethings. Sure, it's uncouth and he's punching below the belt. He's specifically doing it to antagonize. He WANTS it to happen. He wants to poke that bear so he can have a raging bear to justify his bear-repellant.
Forget all that. No, this is worse. Catch this part:
"But certainly Mr Snowden has created quite a stir among those folks who are very committed to transparency and global transparency and the global web, kind of ungoverned and free. And I don't know that there's a logic between trying to [punish] America or American institutions for his arrest, but I hold out the possibility. I can sit here and imagine circumstances and scenarios, but they're nothing more than imaginative."
He's specifically calling out TRANSPARENCY GROUPS. And he's kinda sorta maybe suggesting the possibility that they'll go "punish America". He can't actually tell us why that would happen but oh he's imagining it. It's like a wet dream where all of his illegal deeds throughout his life become justified and he's worshipped as a hero for stopping "those evil transparency groups". It's one where he doesn't go to sleep at night worrying that he'll be fired, tried, and thrown in prison for violating the law.
That's what you have to focus on here. The man is in FEAR of transparency. This is a sign of a bad man.
If you want to run something on old hardware I'd HIGHLY suggest Linux. "It runs Linux" is a fucking CATCHPHRASE around here. You can't possibly be suggesting that the poor of Saudi Arabia install "a more recent version of Windows" on their 486. Now, say you're in Jeddah and a poor streetrat comes up to you with an old PC and asks you how to have secure communications with is grandmother in the USA. What OS do you suggest he use?
Yeah, SELinux has mandatory access control. Ubunutu, which is moderately common, has had AppArmor since 2009. Which implements MAC. Now, AppArmor does some things different from SELinux, and I'd naievely say that SELinux probably takes the more secure route. But as far as feature shopping goes, LINUX HAS MAC.
ALSR and DEP are in the kernel. It's not a distro thing.
Or, even if it was enabled in the kernel the distro did not provide apps compiled with appropriate support.
Wut?
Ok, ok, there might be some compatibility issues when a program expects itself to be loaded in a specific location, but otherwise programs ask and get the space they get from the kernel. It's a seperate layer. The application layer shouldn't NEED support for ALSR because that operates on a layer below it. What the fuck are you talking about? Likewise for DEP. If your program depended on a buffer overflow to operate YOU SHOULD STOP USING IT and the distro should kick it to the curb and never look back.
I never said these are cutting edge security features by the way....nice strawman....
Oh, my pardons, I thought you were talking about the current state of Microsoft Windows security vs Linux security.
Finally, Using a more recent windows version is actually good for security. ASLR, DEP, a rudimentary MAC implementation, UAC...despite what people say, Windows is actually one of the better operating systems security wise these days. Not just because of the preventive technology that most other OS's don't have (OS X has a lacking and broken implementation, most linux distros are not as complete in their implementations..), but because Microsoft started taking security seriously and vulnerabilities are rare these days.
Oh, that's right. You were. But alas, perhaps the term "cutting edge" was just a bit too much for you. Let me rephrase that:
Jesus son, have you been under a rock since Vista came out? Do you really think these are security features that make Windows stand out? This is a small shopping list of security features from the back of a VISTA cardboard box. You know, back when such things came in boxes. In the olden times. For old people. Oldy.
Maybe they remember when it was a acronym. Learn some history, kid.
Wut?
Many of the people using Tor in restrictive countries won't have the luxury of switching away from Windows
Which country are you specifically talking about? Is it illegal to run Linux somewhere? To the best of my knowledge the only people working on keeping people from installing Linux are the ones trying to push secureboot and UEFI. That's Microsoft and friends. The whole "war on general computing" thing seems either overblown or in it's infancy. Seriously, who don't have the luxury of switching away from Windows? Are you talking about wage-slaves or something? Who would use TOR at work?
Secondly, yeah, it's an issue with an old browser. Yes, updating the browser is the correct solution. That didn't stop the people at TOR from suggesting you switch to Linux. And it certainly didn't stop the linux circle-jerk here at Slashdot. It's just kind of expected.
Finally. While a more recent windows version is a good security move as opposed to less recent windows versions, as long as you can stomach metro, I'll be sticking with Linux when it comes to security. You know, because of history:
Address Space Layout Randomization: Linux had it in June 2005. Vista had it in 2007. (FYI, this is OLD)
Data Execution Prevention: Both Linux and Windows had it in 2004. (OLD)
Mandatory Access Control: Distributions of Linux have it. Vista has something like it.
User Account Control: Also a Vista thing. And it was universally reviled. Typical users will just click through it, in anger. The later versions might be less annoying, but it's more or less equivalent to making the user prefix sudo ahead of important commands. Which, you know, has been around for a little while in Linux.
Jesus son, have you been under a rock since Vista came out? Is this really what you think is cutting edge security features?
All your choices might be bad by mid-November when the ballots are already printed. But it'd take an awfully cynical view to claim that all the choices were bad during the primary election. And I don't think anyone would say that all your choices for the 2016 election are bad right now. Because at this point you could push, campaign, analyze, and interrogate damn near anyone.
I mean, you know, if you actually care about politics, the US government, or being a good citizen. Hey, I understand, it's hard to Google all this stuff. And there are SO many names to remember. And football is on the TV right over there with your top 7 favorite teams and whatnot. So sure, sure, just let someone else make that decision. They'll narrow it down for you by November 2016.
I personally see a capability within these slides that the US needs to have and would be scared if we didn't.
Seriously? You'd be scared if the US government didn't have the ability to browse through the everyone's email contents for the last 3 days?
Maybe you meant other capabilities. Maybe you meant the ability to have a deep search vs a shallow search on whatever data they happen to have. Maybe you're focusing on the technological capabilities that people would expect from an intelligence organization. Meanwhile, the rest of us are shitting our pants about how blatantly illegal this operation is.
Yes. We'd generally assume that, with a warrant, from a real judge, who gave it because there was probable cause and all that jazz, with a record of who got what warrant to search for what and where, the investigators would be able to quickly get the email, phone, whatnot records from corporations about nefarious people. That's a good thing. It's legal. It helps catch the bad guy.
For me I have no expectation of privacy when on the Internet.
Own and carry a phone? You're always on the Internet.
Likewise, do you have any "expectation of privacy" when you're on a restroom shitter? Those stall doors weren't REALLY designed for privacy. Anyone can stare at you through the cracks or duck their head under the stall. Creepy as hell, but do you think it should be illegal? Do you have an expectation of privacy while shitting? FYI, while email is sent in clear-text, you and I have an expectation of privacy with email... at least for 180 days per the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.... huh... that's kinda disturbing.
how does a government with limited human resources investigate potential threats?
With a warrant. Not a dragnet. See: checks and balances.
Over 300 terrorists captured
Define terrorist. Do you mean those sheep they lead to slaughter by talking them into BECOMING terrorists and accepting fake bombs from undercover agents? Do you mean the Muslim charity that gave money to an organization who helped children, oh and also some terrorists drink from that well? It'd be nice if I could trust them when they claim 300 terrorists were captured thanks to this program, but they have redefined terrorism to the point I can no longer recognize it.
I ask slashdotter's what is the best way for a government to find threats to it's citizens in this digital age?
Find evidence, follow leads, GET A FUCKING WARRANT.
Should the Internet be hands off for our government?
False dichotomy. The government should not keep track of what everyone is doing on the Internet and allow unsupervised surveillance of the masses. Nor should the government ignore the Internet.
some were indeed damaging to US foreign policy.
Yeah, that happens when you pay for little boys to be raped. Sunlight and transparency is a bitch isn't it?
The things which were "damaging to US foreign policy" were the exact sort of abuses that the USA has to stop doing. Because otherwise we are the bad guys. If you want them to stop doing blatantly evil things, you have to punish them when they do it. Letting them get away with murder just reenforces that behavior, and leads to more murders.
You're bitching about "due diligence" when the man exposed children being systematically raped and US corporations abusing powers they shouldn't even have to screw over third world nations. He exposed blatantly illegal intent of spying on U.N. leaders, our supposed allies.
But yeah sure, he violated the US government privacy and told some of their secrets that nobody cared about. I'm sure that justifies locking him in solitary for a year, forcing him awake from 5am (7am on weekends, woo!) to 8pm, taking away his glasses, then taking away his clothes and forcing him to present himself naked every morning. You know, suicide watch. He could have hurt himself with that underwear and flipflops. At least the torture lessened when the lawyers complained.
I agree with you, he released a lot of information which exposed the US governments less desirable actions, actions which should be looked at in great depth.
However,my issue with Manning is that he also released a lot of other documents. 250,000 cables, for example.
Those diplomatic cables had some of the most damning material!
Did you miss the one where US taxpayer's money is being funneled through Dyncorp to purchase little boy sex slaves on the behalf of the US military as party favors for Afghan warlords? And this is similar to their behavior in Bosnia in 1999. So FYI, the US has a department for buying and selling sex-slaves. No, it doesn't really matter that it's a separate company.
That's the most vile one I know of off the top of my head. There's also evidence that Monsanto and Pfizer use US diplomats to badger governments so they get out of lawsuits. And Monsanto is just as evil as you'd expect. Damn straight this should be "looked at in depth" and then people should be thrown in prison for life. And it makes Manning look like a true patriot. We've GOT to fix this. We HAVE to be the good guys.
Seriously, if this is news to you, GO READ IT.
Hey, I get what you're saying. That he shouldn't have just leaked all this information without making sure it wasn't endangering anyone. And that's a mountain of work. So thank goodness that he went to a professional leaking site like Wikileaks to handle it all. (Too bad they trusted Guardian journalist David Leigh with the encryption key. He fucked up and it all got released underacted after about a year.)
In case anyone was wondering about those numbers, it was about $0.5 billion to Solyndra vs $7 billion to Halliburton.
Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt. Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million.[19] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid.
Solyndra failed because it couldn't compete with China who, arguably, dumped solar cells to kill such competition. Halliburton on the other hand, is a war profiteer that sent their CEO into politics to secure a contract.
Was wondering when someone would post this. It's not a bad read, as long as you ignore the parts which are out of date scientifically.
Uh, actually he's being charged with espionage and theft of government property. That happened back on June 14th.
The problem is that they only fine corporations because there isn't any "one" to imprison
Yes there is. Probably more than one. Someone gave the order to perform an illegal activity. Someone followed the order to perform an illegal activity.
Listen, Halliburton being a corporation doesn't give them some sort of mystical disembodied super-power. It's a group of people. The same as a mafia gang, plumber's union, government, military troop, or book club. If someone in your book club decided to go murder their mother, you don't get thrown in jail. If the head of the plumbers union uses the union's funds, equipment, and contacts to gas a housing complex, and no-one else was in on it, then only he goes to jail. If the the general orders his troops to go on a raping spree, and they all do it, then they all go to jail. If the mafia boss orders Jimmie to hold a package and he doesn't know it's drugs, and you can't convince a jury that he knew it was drugs, then Jimmie walks free. The same as if your murderous book club member told you to hang onto this package until the next meeting. It's just easier to convince a jury when it's a criminal organization as opposed to a book club.
Sometimes everyone is guilty. Everyone knows that the group as a whole is violating a law. In that case, EVERYONE IS GUILTY. At least of being complicit or an accessory. This is why it's a crime to to not report a crime. This is why our troops are oath-bound to question orders.
Corporations aren't magic shields that stop criminal investigations. At least they're not supposed to be outside of a dystopian cyberpunk novel.
Someone did something illegal. Investigate and throw them in jail.
. . . right. Yeah, I didn't think about that too hard did I?
Ignore that part about secrets and authenticators.
Sorry, I had it in my head that it was a one-way communication of their program to... whatever it is they plan on having. I think they want both ends to send and receive audio. So two people have their cell phones kiss for a while.
I think it's interesting how many alarm bells this post sets off in my head.
First off, it's a long format Slashdot article, and it's not an "ask slashdot" nor a book review. Slashdot TV? is that still a thing? Why are they selling this company?
It reads like an ad and uses the language thereof: "Imagine", "envision", "a way to facilitate", "Initially with Bitcoin",
And.... is that trying to spin the shoddy website as a good thing?
And the format of the video and interview is also just... cheap.
Is their idea worthwhile? Are there already ways to achieve the same results? Is illliri's way enough better than existing mobile device security systems that it's worth exploring? And would it be better, not just for the world in general, but as a way to help illiri's founders make a living if their software was open source?
See Betteridge law of headlines.
Then there's the obvious problem with the basic fundamental gimmick: Anyone with a recorder nearby now has you password. The thing about secrets that are supposed to stay between you and the authenticator is that the transfer point is REALLY important. Pin numbers, passwords and all that jazz are a pain in the ass, but a noise? Anyone with a audio recorder now has your password. If you can put a device up next to their mic, then there are much more secure ways to have your device hand it some information.
This is just so.... so... this is a joke right? Some sort of meta-humor on slashdot?
Also, 10 years ago lines up pretty well with the after affects of the dot-com bubble.
It's after a lot of people died, that survivors have to figure out how to be more efficient.
Well that's depressing. I don't know about imperialism and the revolutions being a massive die-off event. But every revolution is going to be a bit different. I mean, this one is coming on awfully fast. Arguably, we had the computer revolution, and the Internet revolution back to back.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Well the good news is that the worse things get the better the chances of finding a solution... right?
Bread and circuses don't really cost all that much.
No, it does cost a lot
Are we both on the same page about what constitutes bread and circuses?
Keeping food prices low (farm subsidies, McDonalds, etc) and keeping the rabble entertained: TV, Internet, drama. The sort of fear that Huxley had in "Brave New World". You don't have to keep everyone happy, you just have to keep enough content enough so they don't feel the need to commit suicide attacking the establishment. Bread and circuses are a HELL OF A LOT cheaper than using tanks and SWATS to keep the population in line. Ask the Soviet Union. And maybe I'm a cynical old bastard, but bread and circuses are probably cheaper than just supplying a middle-class lifestyle to the masses. I know that psychologically, not enough people will work if they don't profit from it, so handing out a cushy lifestyle simply won't work. One of those human needs is to be needed.
I don't see mass retraining programs
Why does it have to be done en-mass? (or is that a fat-joke?) People can go out and find new jobs. Read wikipedia, take courses, google how to fix an AC unit, play with arduinos, devour the hideous beast that is Sharepoint documentation and come in like a blessed angel to scour the demons that plague small businesses because they were fooled by the twisted Gates of hell and skewered on lance point. This is, retraining can be done piecemeal. Which makes sense because not everyone is a super-happy to be going from a factory job to learning binary.
I don't see extended unemployment insurance.
Huh... that's a thing. But no, unemployment benefits have been extended. A lot. Which makes sense when the job market is hard. But really, I don't think insurance for this is a good idea. Lose the job, go get another. Whatever you can get. One of the details that gets glossed over post-recession is that a lot of people swallowed their pride and became underemployed. Which sucks. But it sucks less then being unemployed.
So after a decade or two of absolute misery governments might be so broken and debt ridden as to be unable to do whatever it is that should have been done a decade or so earlier.
Why does it have to be the government to do something about this? And remember, robots don't make the nation poor. Robots, and job-stealing technology in general, make for a more efficient society. The nation makes more money.
That bad things happen to good people and that the government can buy an instant recovery if the money is handed to the people productively (if you can call building munitions productive).
Right, the government can go massively into debt as a pay-day loan to bail out the citizens. Raising the taxes on the rich didn't hurt either. A world war and lynch mobs against anyone not patriotic enough keeps the industrialists from complaining too much. As long as the government can borrow enough, and pays off the debt when times are good, then it all works. Keynes economics. It works.
This was the generation that then voted in welfare and banking reforms vowing never again.
And they always seem to forget about every 30 years. It came back in the 1980's and again at 2007. The trigger already happened. Did you miss that econopocalypse that Obama got elected into? And yeah, lessons learned. We threw a TON of money at the problem and adverted a collapse. What's troubling about the 2007 fiasco is that the hammer really didn't come down on the banks that caused this problem. WTF?
Huh, haven't had to do this yet. Anyway, here we go:
Oblig xkcd ref
Where there are people, there are cops. Where there are cops, there are raids. Where there are raids, there are botched raids. The map is useful for finding and referencing incidents in a particular area, but it is not to be used for retail purposes. Civilization is a tradeoff that has more or less been worth the annoyance of having to deal with all these fuckers around me.
I see robots feeding capitalism to an extreme point while eating jobs like a 70's Japanese city eating monster.
Much like computers ate paper-pusher jobs in the 90's, industrialism ate cottage industry in the 1800's, and rotating crops in the pre-reniasiance. Turns out that when you free up a swath of the populace from having to work they find something else to do. The first generation often wants to smash some looms though. You're absolutely right that it's painful.
It's no different with robots than with the singularities of the past. No one saw where the jobs were going to be created. Sure, SOME people are going to be needed to work in the factories, but the entire point of the factory line is that it takes less people to crank out 10 zillion wicker baskets in a week. Likewise, SOME people are going to be needed to maintain the robots. Hell, the world needs more programmers. Let them eat code.
So what do you do with 60% of the population who are permanently out of the economic picture?
Well, historically they're ignored as they don't have any cash for others to deprive them of. If there's a rebellion or such, the powers that be brutally crush it. But I'd be a big fan of having them do something else. "Retraining".
And hopefully their kids will learn a skill/trade/profession that will have legs. And we can ALWAYS use more artists, scientists, and uuuugggghhh... politicians.
Do you punish them for being poor?
No, being poor is usually quite enough.
Do you let them just vote bread and circuses?
Well... yes. This is a democracy. Bread and circuses don't really cost all that much.
I don't think that there will be any easy solutions
Agreed.
but one of the keys to economics is consumption not production.
Wut? I believe both are equal halves of the equation.
With Robotic production we may hit this semi-utopian "Post scarcity" scenario.
Well, sorta. I mean, 80% of us no longer have to break our backs in the fields growing potatoes by hand so the nobles can eat. All in all this IS a post-scarcity scenario, compared to the past. But yes, the overall trend of technological progress will continue and less people will have to work to fulfill the basic needs of everyone else.
So the key to the economy will be focusing on getting people to consume?
Well sure. If you're the one with production. But the key to economic success has ALWAYS been getting people to consume what you're producing. Even if that's potatoes, iStoppedCaringGizmos, or the service of fitting slot A into tab B on an assembly line for 8 hours a day. I make code. Specifically, I help companies sort their shitty projects into something that can be changed without imploding. That's the service I produce, they consume it. It works pretty well for both of us.
How do you get people with no money to consume?
You break their kneecaps. Or threaten to. I've heard that's how slumlords milk rent out of deadbeats. But in general, you just don't. Selling to poor people is a tough business model.
You give them money. Then they get to participate in the economy and maybe they don't just decide that the guillotine was an excellent lever for social change.
And here is the point that we have a MASSIVE disagreement. Look, I'm all for compassion and welfare for those who truly need it. But at NO POINT does giving away money make economical sense. It can make political sense, and it can keep the guillotine away, but that's at the expense of the economy. Seriously, there are plenty of ways for the poor masses to get an education, learn a trade, find an unfulfilled need, and make a buck. No, it's often not the glamorous lifestyle that the American dream duped you into stri
Citation needed. What reason do you have to believe that food quality has diminished in the last 50 years?
I'll offer an opinion that a phrase like "RoundUp Ready" in a seed stock description doesn't sound either tasty or nutritious...
And that's a wholly meaningless and pointless distinction when it comes the the quality of food. While your comment probably doesn't warrant the board jumping down your throat, your comment is off-topic and does not contribute to the discussion.
Your post is actually a good example by itself of the issue with vitamins. The scientific and factual points of the effects of vitamins get more or less completely ignored in favor of it's marketing capability. Just like a discussion about the actual physical aspects of round-up ready crops gets blithely ignored when it gets to consumers because... "it doesn't *sound* tasty or nutritious"...
Yeah... the marketers, salesmen, charletans, quacks, and the consumers who get fooled by even the most basic routine gimicks and gobble up that stuff can go get bent. ...And they can go starve to death in the dark with their gullet full of sawdust and broken dreams.