He is talking about diagnostics, which shouldn't really be too dangerous in itself.
Also, the chips might be propriety but the connection and the codes/protocol are standard.
I guess he could screw up and read the code for brake-system-will-not-maintain-pressure as gas-cap-loose but in general I don't see how it could pose much of a threat to anyone.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they send US traffic to servers in the US, specifically Cali: The second to last hop is:
gige-g1-1.core2.fmt1.he.net (72.52.92.246) which comes back as Freemont, CA.
The proxy itself was 74.82.58.2. This doesn't have any location info on record, but it is licensed to Hurricane Electric, Inc. which seems to be based in Fremont, CA.
Unfortunately.
yes, and as I recall it is going forward and being tested. But I would be surprised if we see any wide-scale deployment in the next 5 years, let alone full coverage that would make internet access a moot point.
Sprint/Clearwire's WiMax network is going to be closer to making it a moot issue sooner and it still has a long way to go.
The problem with nationalism is that it tends to make race the basis of political loyalty. It is just tribalism on a grand scale. Wikipedia does a nice job on this:
Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state. The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance. . . . In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. In former eras, people were generally loyal to a city or to a particular leader rather than to their nation.
Much later it goes on discussing criticisms:
Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights differences between peoples, emphasising an individual's identification with their own nation. . . . Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations conflicts. Such examples include The Great War and World War Two, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. . . . Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism of diminishing individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy. William Blum has said this in other words: "If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses." Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind."
Not to Godwin the thread but in this case it is quite appropriate, Nazis were nationalists par excellence.
Your post seems to be built on the assumption that Google is of benefit only to the people of China, and is harmful to the government, that is, that the withdraw of Google does not harm the government.
However, as dfim points out, Google so far has been basically playing by the governments rules. I'm no expert and maybe I'm wrong; maybe google has been using its clout to change chinese policy, and push the envelope on what is permissible.
On the other hand I do think google has been a boon for the government, at least indirectly, E.g. "More than three-quarters of scientists in China . . . say their work would be significantly hampered if they were to lose [Google]." I suspect the government would be aware of the loss of such a useful tool to its people, economy, and research.
But even if Google's withdraw does no harm to the government, at least it could precipitate a change in attitude. Perhaps other big companies will follow suit. The overall change in public awareness is a huge blow to the Chinese government, even if the material loss of Google's services is not.
It's not unlike tough love. A parent sees his kid's life falling apart because of substance abuse. Then the kid comes to him and asks for money because he is out of a job and can't pay his ellectric bill. In the short term the parent can say, well, I certainly don't want him to die/live on the street/endure whatever immediate hardship, so I'll pay the bill to get him by. But this can easily be a short sighted act that only makes the real problem worse, that is it is enabling. Sometimes we have to crack down and make it clear that we will let the bad effects of a person's acts catch up with him, in the hope that it gets him to reevaluate his choices. This is the same problem a country faces in deciding to embargo another county under a dictator. In the short term the embargo is probably going to hurt the citizen, the very people we are (at least in part) ultimately trying to help. But the hope is that the embargo will make things hard enough on everyone that the government is forced to rethink some of its policies.
I'm sick of people writing off all the crappy stuff the Chinese government is doing, just because they are drooling over the money to be made in the Chinese market. Sure google pulling out, by itself, may not cause the government a great deal of difficulty (but make no mistake, it is going to hurt the government, perhaps indirectly: google is a very valuable tool), but if a few more heavy-hitters make a similar choice it might just get the top brass thinking, when they are faced with the choice of being ostracized by the first world and being a little more sensitive to human rights.
I completely agree with everything in this post up till "its still an encroachment on freedom and privacy".
How is this an encroachment of freedom? Google is forcing me to do nothing. They don't even have a practical monopoly on most of these services; I can easily choose to use another email provider, or search engine, etc. And it isn't an encroachment on privacy as long as I'm choosing to use their services, and as long as they respect their own TOS. (If they start giving advertisers direct access to my email, without publishing this change in their TOS, then yes, that would be an encroachment on privacy.)
So yeah, I can certainly see how it is worrisome that so much (semi-)private information is held by one entity, and how the possibility that that entity could be somehow compromised is very troubling. But I don't see how google's current activity can be construed to be an actual "encroachment on freedom and privacy", as opposed to an opportunity for such an encroachment.
Maybe I am not aware of the incident you are referring to, but if it is this you will note that it was user error (choosing to make messages public) not a bug. In other words you should have said "google voicemails which users chose to make public were indexed and made public", which is hardly "misusing customer data". If you are talking about something else, excuse me; A quick google search didn't immediately turn up any other incidents.
Another difference is that URLs are not designed to be secret. This is evidenced by the fact that a good password system a) gives no feedback (i.e., doesn't tell you which of the two factors was incorrect) b) often will have a forced pause between attempts c) often will have a forced lock-out after some relatively low number of failed attempts. This makes bruteforcing a pw considerable less feasible. Most http servers don't have any such mechanisms in place, precisely because URLs aren't supposed to be secret (thus transfered and stored in plaintext etc).
I'm not sure why you would think that normal apostrophe rules are reversed. An apostrophe is always used to indicate a contraction ("it is" -> "it's"). That is a pretty common convention in English and other modern languages. Pronouns, on the other hand, don't take apostraphe-s to form their possessives (his, hers, its, their, etc., the exception is one -> one's).
I should add that there are many cases where contemporary American use is as old as or older than the contemporary British use. Others would be the preservation of 'gotten' ("He's gotten much better.") and certain uses of the subjective (e.g., "He insisted that he be given . ..").
Microsoft released it as a stop gap version to address slightly more memory and disk before the two Windows code bases would be merged together into Windows 2000
Win Me was released _after_ 2k (according to Wikipedia, 7 months after). When 2k was released, I remember MS warning home users to wait until Me came out.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this correct, namely: Is my belief that you meant to click yes correct?
Seems coherent to me.
He is talking about diagnostics, which shouldn't really be too dangerous in itself.
Also, the chips might be propriety but the connection and the codes/protocol are standard.
I guess he could screw up and read the code for brake-system-will-not-maintain-pressure as gas-cap-loose but in general I don't see how it could pose much of a threat to anyone.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they send US traffic to servers in the US, specifically Cali: The second to last hop is:
gige-g1-1.core2.fmt1.he.net (72.52.92.246) which comes back as Freemont, CA.
The proxy itself was 74.82.58.2. This doesn't have any location info on record, but it is licensed to Hurricane Electric, Inc. which seems to be based in Fremont, CA.
Unfortunately.
yes, and as I recall it is going forward and being tested. But I would be surprised if we see any wide-scale deployment in the next 5 years, let alone full coverage that would make internet access a moot point.
Sprint/Clearwire's WiMax network is going to be closer to making it a moot issue sooner and it still has a long way to go.
man mount
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
The problem with nationalism is that it tends to make race the basis of political loyalty. It is just tribalism on a grand scale. Wikipedia does a nice job on this:
Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state. The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance. . . . In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. In former eras, people were generally loyal to a city or to a particular leader rather than to their nation.
Much later it goes on discussing criticisms:
Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights differences between peoples, emphasising an individual's identification with their own nation. . . . Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations conflicts. Such examples include The Great War and World War Two, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. . . . Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism of diminishing individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy. William Blum has said this in other words: "If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses." Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind."
Not to Godwin the thread but in this case it is quite appropriate, Nazis were nationalists par excellence.
In your opinion, is there sufficient ISP competition available to you at your location? (Yes, No, Maybe, I don't know)
This should have asked something objective, like: how many companies offer residential broadband service at your address (not counting satellite).
Yes.
Your post seems to be built on the assumption that Google is of benefit only to the people of China, and is harmful to the government, that is, that the withdraw of Google does not harm the government. However, as dfim points out, Google so far has been basically playing by the governments rules. I'm no expert and maybe I'm wrong; maybe google has been using its clout to change chinese policy, and push the envelope on what is permissible.
On the other hand I do think google has been a boon for the government, at least indirectly, E.g. "More than three-quarters of scientists in China . . . say their work would be significantly hampered if they were to lose [Google]." I suspect the government would be aware of the loss of such a useful tool to its people, economy, and research.
But even if Google's withdraw does no harm to the government, at least it could precipitate a change in attitude. Perhaps other big companies will follow suit. The overall change in public awareness is a huge blow to the Chinese government, even if the material loss of Google's services is not.
It's not unlike tough love. A parent sees his kid's life falling apart because of substance abuse. Then the kid comes to him and asks for money because he is out of a job and can't pay his ellectric bill. In the short term the parent can say, well, I certainly don't want him to die/live on the street/endure whatever immediate hardship, so I'll pay the bill to get him by. But this can easily be a short sighted act that only makes the real problem worse, that is it is enabling. Sometimes we have to crack down and make it clear that we will let the bad effects of a person's acts catch up with him, in the hope that it gets him to reevaluate his choices.
This is the same problem a country faces in deciding to embargo another county under a dictator. In the short term the embargo is probably going to hurt the citizen, the very people we are (at least in part) ultimately trying to help. But the hope is that the embargo will make things hard enough on everyone that the government is forced to rethink some of its policies.
I'm sick of people writing off all the crappy stuff the Chinese government is doing, just because they are drooling over the money to be made in the Chinese market. Sure google pulling out, by itself, may not cause the government a great deal of difficulty (but make no mistake, it is going to hurt the government, perhaps indirectly: google is a very valuable tool), but if a few more heavy-hitters make a similar choice it might just get the top brass thinking, when they are faced with the choice of being ostracized by the first world and being a little more sensitive to human rights.
I completely agree with everything in this post up till "its still an encroachment on freedom and privacy".
How is this an encroachment of freedom? Google is forcing me to do nothing. They don't even have a practical monopoly on most of these services; I can easily choose to use another email provider, or search engine, etc. And it isn't an encroachment on privacy as long as I'm choosing to use their services, and as long as they respect their own TOS. (If they start giving advertisers direct access to my email, without publishing this change in their TOS, then yes, that would be an encroachment on privacy.)
So yeah, I can certainly see how it is worrisome that so much (semi-)private information is held by one entity, and how the possibility that that entity could be somehow compromised is very troubling. But I don't see how google's current activity can be construed to be an actual "encroachment on freedom and privacy", as opposed to an opportunity for such an encroachment.
Maybe I am not aware of the incident you are referring to, but if it is this you will note that it was user error (choosing to make messages public) not a bug. In other words you should have said "google voicemails which users chose to make public were indexed and made public", which is hardly "misusing customer data".
If you are talking about something else, excuse me; A quick google search didn't immediately turn up any other incidents.
How does the Church's requirement that virtually all religious take a vow of celibacy fit into this interpretation?
I thought the author misspelled 'bring'.
Another difference is that URLs are not designed to be secret. This is evidenced by the fact that a good password system a) gives no feedback (i.e., doesn't tell you which of the two factors was incorrect) b) often will have a forced pause between attempts c) often will have a forced lock-out after some relatively low number of failed attempts. This makes bruteforcing a pw considerable less feasible. Most http servers don't have any such mechanisms in place, precisely because URLs aren't supposed to be secret (thus transfered and stored in plaintext etc).
This must be one of the longest sentences ever cast in the English language: There isn't one punctuation mark in the whole 101 words.
I'm not sure why you would think that normal apostrophe rules are reversed.
An apostrophe is always used to indicate a contraction ("it is" -> "it's"). That is a pretty common convention in English and other modern languages.
Pronouns, on the other hand, don't take apostraphe-s to form their possessives (his, hers, its, their, etc., the exception is one -> one's).
you must be *REALLY* new here
we all know expr is infinitely faster once you learn how to use it.
I should add that there are many cases where contemporary American use is as old as or older than the contemporary British use. .").
Others would be the preservation of 'gotten' ("He's gotten much better.") and certain uses of the subjective (e.g., "He insisted that he be given . .
Could be an Americanism?
It's called the "Oxford comma" so I so I suspect not.
deposit seaman deep into the vagina
an exceptionally interesting spelling of 'semen', unless of course you actually were talking about depositing a sailor in the vagina. ; )
I see them all over the mid-atlantic (MD, VA). I didn't realize they weren't standard anymore.
Microsoft released it as a stop gap version to address slightly more memory and disk before the two Windows code bases would be merged together into Windows 2000
Win Me was released _after_ 2k (according to Wikipedia, 7 months after). When 2k was released, I remember MS warning home users to wait until Me came out.
I'm not sure whether this is blatant astorturfing, parody astoturfing, fanboyism, or something else.
Please MtViewGuy, gimme a hint.