Lavabit was a mixed bag, they had their pros and cons.
Pros:
* Provided free email service
* Simple
* Most of the features you expect from an email service
* Spam and virus filters were customizable and much easier than most other services.
* They shut down their servers instead of giving up Edward Snowden.
Cons:
* Buggy, bugs were never fixed, bug reports were never acknowledged
* Poor communication skills from the developers, both free and paid accounts
* Actively lied when they shut the service down. For about 2 days they insisted that it was just an upgrade, would be back up soon, and that our emails were not being lost. If they couldn't tell the truth for legal reasons they should have said nothing instead, there was no excuse for the lies.
* For about 2 days after the shutdown they continued to accept emails sent to users, instead of just rejecting them so the senders would know that the emails had not been delivered.
Lavabit is back up but I don't use them anymore because of their behavior the first time. They are just not trustworthy.
I'm glad that they did a study, because clearly somebody needed a study, but this seems really predictable. How could MS and Apple and these other subpar UI designers not predict that making it harder to tell what is a UI element would make it harder to navigate?
Hopefully next they'll figure out that increasing the number of clicks or keys and hiding the options (aka hamburger menu) also makes navigation harder and slower.
This wasn't until a few years after 2003, but after trying to install Mandrake Whatever and Red Hat 9.0, I remember installing Debian Sarge. It wasn't magic, but I remember thinking, "So this is what an easy install feel like." No crashes or anything, it just installed easily, 1 step at a time.
It looks like it might execute on a default distro, but it depends which packages you have installed. A heavy distro such as Ubuntu might have these packages by default.
The summary has a link to a good description of the bug from the bug's founder. It looks like the poorly written line is specifically intended to execute VBScript, so I doubt you could use another scripting language or executable binary. However, you could use VBScript to write arbitrary content to.bashrc, which you could cause to download an arbitrary binary and execute it.
Something like this happened to me. My email address was with a company called "Lavabit." Except they didn't give me 30 days, they shut down with 0 notice. After they shut down, they even lied to us, saying that our emails were safe, that they were having technical problems and would be back up in a couple of days.
It was a huge mess, I would have appreciated 30 days, but I still would have been upset like this guy.
He starts by condeming browsers and proxies that help people browse the internet anonymously. Then he jumps to saying that anonymous browsing leads to trading drugs, weapons, and pornography. Then he commends the USA NSA for spying on Americans but is concerned that now that they have been caught Americans might do something about it.
Red Hat offers 10 years of support. And new versions of Red Hat are generally better than previous versions, so there isn't as much need to hold on to old versions.
Did calling home really throw off the results? Since that is something that ordinary users would have to put up with, I would think it should be part of the test. It might be difficult to get an average, but testing Intel's compiler only when it is at its fastest doesn't seem fair.
The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants â" in their own words â" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
Sounds reasonable. Anyone with an intermediate understanding of computers and the internet would be able to publish something silently. Create an account with a seedbox, upload file, upload torrent to thepiratebay.sx.
It looks like all they did with the "hacker" identification is determine that they were intermediate level with computers and networking.
Judging from the summary, this is a standard courtroom procedure, and the submitter is trying to sensationalize it by leaving out all of the other evidence.
History is ripe with companies that built a product that does something different, and in ways better, than the competition. And once their product is successful, they try to emulate something that somebody else does, and their product share slowly declines as their users realize there is no longer anything special about the product.
Look at Firefox. It was a faster, lighter, less annoying and extensible browser. Over time, it slowly got bulkier, slower, and in some ways buggier. They annoy users by panicing any time a certificate is signed by an authority not on the list. When Google released Chrome, Firefox decided they wanted to have a Chrome-like super fast release cycle, which hurt extensions. Users are slowly leaving Firefox for other browsers, especially Chrome, as Firefox becomes less and less special.
If Google locks down the OS and prevents users from installing their own applications, then Android will no longer be special. People will still use it, since it's still a smart phone and devices will be cheaper than Apple. But as soon as a competitor comes along that offers what Google used to offer, users will quickly leave, and within several years Android will be a memory.
No evidence has yet been presented to back the claims...
Is it fearmongering?
Or is there some legitimate basis for the ban?
How would we know whether or not evidence exists? All we know is that we haven't seen any. Time will tell. If no evidence is preseneted in the next month or so, then we'll know that it's just fearmongering, and not a legitmate basis for a ban.
Obviously the previous reports were wrong. Anybody familiar with computers and storage space knew that the numbers reported by NPR and other "news" outlets were ridiculous. They were saying that the center would hold 5 zetabytes, and would only cost $1.2 billion! That's about 25 cents per TB.
Best I could tell, NPR et al misunderstood a Wired article from over a year ago. In the Wired article, somebody said that they would eventually like the processing power in the center to exceed 1 exaflops, and then maybe someday after that 1 zetaflops.
the fact that Google can read them (and disclose them if forced by 'law') is a bit surprising, too put it nicely.
That's not just nice, that's outright flattery. Seriously, who is surprised by this? Lots of cloud backup storage services don't let you encrypt data (or make it hard to do so), so why would it be surprising that Google, the mother of all data hoarders, would want to store and read this stuff?
I went to AMD's driver site, which I found with the google search, "amd catalyst download". I clicked on "Windows XP (32 bit)". Then I clicked on "Previous Drivers and Software."
This reminds me of a female blogger several years ago after that tennager suicide case. She reported that she heard match.com didn't allow married people to use their site. She said that couldn't risk confirming this herself, since she was happily married.
The point is, how are you supposed to know if you are allowed to use a site, if you can't even read the terms of service without risking violating the terms of service?
UEFI has been implicated in the death of Samsung laptops running Linux.
That had nothing to do with Linux, and UEFI had no fault in that. The problem is that Samsung wrote a serious bug into their UEFI implementation that causes the laptop to brick if the user does X, Y, and Z under any operating system.
Agreed. There are roughly 100 million internet enabled households in the United States. If each of these sent and received, on average, 1GB per month, that's 100 PB.
Slashdot Mirror
Newly created, popular, and deprecated. That doesn't sound right.
Lavabit was a mixed bag, they had their pros and cons.
Pros:
* Provided free email service
* Simple
* Most of the features you expect from an email service
* Spam and virus filters were customizable and much easier than most other services.
* They shut down their servers instead of giving up Edward Snowden.
Cons:
* Buggy, bugs were never fixed, bug reports were never acknowledged
* Poor communication skills from the developers, both free and paid accounts
* Actively lied when they shut the service down. For about 2 days they insisted that it was just an upgrade, would be back up soon, and that our emails were not being lost. If they couldn't tell the truth for legal reasons they should have said nothing instead, there was no excuse for the lies.
* For about 2 days after the shutdown they continued to accept emails sent to users, instead of just rejecting them so the senders would know that the emails had not been delivered.
Lavabit is back up but I don't use them anymore because of their behavior the first time. They are just not trustworthy.
I'm glad that they did a study, because clearly somebody needed a study, but this seems really predictable. How could MS and Apple and these other subpar UI designers not predict that making it harder to tell what is a UI element would make it harder to navigate?
Hopefully next they'll figure out that increasing the number of clicks or keys and hiding the options (aka hamburger menu) also makes navigation harder and slower.
This wasn't until a few years after 2003, but after trying to install Mandrake Whatever and Red Hat 9.0, I remember installing Debian Sarge. It wasn't magic, but I remember thinking, "So this is what an easy install feel like." No crashes or anything, it just installed easily, 1 step at a time.
It looks like it might execute on a default distro, but it depends which packages you have installed. A heavy distro such as Ubuntu might have these packages by default.
The summary has a link to a good description of the bug from the bug's founder. It looks like the poorly written line is specifically intended to execute VBScript, so I doubt you could use another scripting language or executable binary. However, you could use VBScript to write arbitrary content to .bashrc, which you could cause to download an arbitrary binary and execute it.
Something like this happened to me. My email address was with a company called "Lavabit." Except they didn't give me 30 days, they shut down with 0 notice. After they shut down, they even lied to us, saying that our emails were safe, that they were having technical problems and would be back up in a couple of days.
It was a huge mess, I would have appreciated 30 days, but I still would have been upset like this guy.
I would hardly call this reducing functionality. Technically, sure. But a web browser is supposed to browse the web, and this API wasn't helping any.
Why wouldn't Canonical simply update the repository with patches that address known security vulnerabilities?
"multiple critical security bugs for which no fixes have been backported,"
The summary answers your question. There are no patches that address the known security vulnerabilities.
it's up to someone from the Ubuntu community to step up and fix it.
If someone creates a patch, they are welcome to submit it, and maybe the package maintainer will apply it.
https://xkcd.com/801/
He starts by condeming browsers and proxies that help people browse the internet anonymously. Then he jumps to saying that anonymous browsing leads to trading drugs, weapons, and pornography. Then he commends the USA NSA for spying on Americans but is concerned that now that they have been caught Americans might do something about it.
Red Hat offers 10 years of support. And new versions of Red Hat are generally better than previous versions, so there isn't as much need to hold on to old versions.
Source: http://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/red-hat-extends-linux-support.html
I don't want directions.
Did calling home really throw off the results? Since that is something that ordinary users would have to put up with, I would think it should be part of the test. It might be difficult to get an average, but testing Intel's compiler only when it is at its fastest doesn't seem fair.
How exactly would one steal a public domain work, even for a loose definition of "steal?"
But then how would Googlebot know that Phoronix is really great and popular and they should rank it higher in searches?
The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants â" in their own words â" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
Sounds reasonable. Anyone with an intermediate understanding of computers and the internet would be able to publish something silently. Create an account with a seedbox, upload file, upload torrent to thepiratebay.sx.
It looks like all they did with the "hacker" identification is determine that they were intermediate level with computers and networking.
Judging from the summary, this is a standard courtroom procedure, and the submitter is trying to sensationalize it by leaving out all of the other evidence.
History is ripe with companies that built a product that does something different, and in ways better, than the competition. And once their product is successful, they try to emulate something that somebody else does, and their product share slowly declines as their users realize there is no longer anything special about the product.
Look at Firefox. It was a faster, lighter, less annoying and extensible browser. Over time, it slowly got bulkier, slower, and in some ways buggier. They annoy users by panicing any time a certificate is signed by an authority not on the list. When Google released Chrome, Firefox decided they wanted to have a Chrome-like super fast release cycle, which hurt extensions. Users are slowly leaving Firefox for other browsers, especially Chrome, as Firefox becomes less and less special.
If Google locks down the OS and prevents users from installing their own applications, then Android will no longer be special. People will still use it, since it's still a smart phone and devices will be cheaper than Apple. But as soon as a competitor comes along that offers what Google used to offer, users will quickly leave, and within several years Android will be a memory.
No evidence has yet been presented to back the claims...
Is it fearmongering?
Or is there some legitimate basis for the ban?
How would we know whether or not evidence exists? All we know is that we haven't seen any. Time will tell. If no evidence is preseneted in the next month or so, then we'll know that it's just fearmongering, and not a legitmate basis for a ban.
Obviously the previous reports were wrong. Anybody familiar with computers and storage space knew that the numbers reported by NPR and other "news" outlets were ridiculous. They were saying that the center would hold 5 zetabytes, and would only cost $1.2 billion! That's about 25 cents per TB.
Best I could tell, NPR et al misunderstood a Wired article from over a year ago. In the Wired article, somebody said that they would eventually like the processing power in the center to exceed 1 exaflops, and then maybe someday after that 1 zetaflops.
the fact that Google can read them (and disclose them if forced by 'law') is a bit surprising, too put it nicely.
That's not just nice, that's outright flattery. Seriously, who is surprised by this? Lots of cloud backup storage services don't let you encrypt data (or make it hard to do so), so why would it be surprising that Google, the mother of all data hoarders, would want to store and read this stuff?
Find old versions right here: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/previous/Pages/radeonaiw_xp.aspx
I went to AMD's driver site, which I found with the google search, "amd catalyst download". I clicked on "Windows XP (32 bit)". Then I clicked on "Previous Drivers and Software."
Block the whole internet by default. Customers have to submit a list of checkmarks letting the ISP know what they would like to have unblocked.
This reminds me of a female blogger several years ago after that tennager suicide case. She reported that she heard match.com didn't allow married people to use their site. She said that couldn't risk confirming this herself, since she was happily married.
The point is, how are you supposed to know if you are allowed to use a site, if you can't even read the terms of service without risking violating the terms of service?
UEFI has been implicated in the death of Samsung laptops running Linux.
That had nothing to do with Linux, and UEFI had no fault in that. The problem is that Samsung wrote a serious bug into their UEFI implementation that causes the laptop to brick if the user does X, Y, and Z under any operating system.
Agreed. There are roughly 100 million internet enabled households in the United States. If each of these sent and received, on average, 1GB per month, that's 100 PB.