California-based Ubiquiti Networks confirmed recently that attackers are actively targeting a flaw in AirOS, the Linux-based firmware that runs the wireless router
This is the first time I've seen anything that was more than a proof of concept attack for Linux.
By your own admission that you know they are false statements, those are not actual assertions that you are making. Asserting something requires confidently believing that it is true. If you actually asserted either of those things, you'd probably run into some legal trouble if you pushed hard enough.
The biggest problem with censorship is that at its fundamental level, it is an attempt to control what people will know or believe, (since what information they are being allowed to access in the first place is controlled), and is an attempt to try and legislate what kinds of things people are even allowed to *THINK* about.
Nobody, no agency, no authority, no government, absolutely no power absolutely anywhere has any right to decide what any other human being should be allowed to think. Period.
While it certainly may suck if somebody makes an unfair decision about you because you did something spectacularly stupid or wrong a long time ago when that person is too narrow minded to consider how much time has actually elapsed since it occurred, but in the end that decision is still on them. Unfair shit happens to everybody in this world... heck, half of the people in this world are starving to death, and somebody living in a privileged nation thinks its unfair that an employer won't hire them because of some stupid shit that went down over a decade ago? It doesn't fucking matter whose fault it is when bad stuff happens to any us, it is still that person's individual responsibility to deal with it... and to continue to be the best person that they know how to be, and blaming past mistakes or blaming the fact that other people might not forgive us for them to justify why we aren't being better is just acting like a fucking crybaby. People who do so need to grow the hell up, act like adults, and and take responsibility for their OWN lives in the here and the now, instead of letting what people might believe about them dictate what choices they make.
(huff, puff, huff, puff, huff, puff.. Well, that turned into more of a rant than I first thought it would).
A sincere apology would be accompanied with an offer to make restitution to those who were harmed, or else pay the appropriate penalties for past wrongdoing.
Any so-called apology without at least one of these things is nothing of the sort.
Otherwise it comes across as they are only sorry that they won't continue doing it.
it would be much like if women suddenly started giving shitty reviews and votes to monday night football.
You say that like there is some sort of orchestrated conspiracy among them.
would you find that to be helpful, or sabotage?
I would find it to be an opinion. It might be an opinion that differs from mine, or even an unconstructive opinion, but that doesn't make it sabotage.
put another way: for the purposes of calculating a ratings score for sex in the city, WOMEN DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR OPINION. by reviewing it, you are diluting the score with your completely inappropriate demographic.
Perhaps people who feel this way need to be reminded that not even a hundred years ago they could not vote in US elections because *THEIR* opinion didn't matter to society at the time.
Wow... so instead of assuming that people have different tastes, blame the fact that apparently a lot of men don't seem to like some shows that happen to be popular with a lot of women happen on their gender.
The story's been out for an hour, and nary a comment about how it makes no sense to cure when they can keep profiting from ongoing treatment. I don't know whether to be relieved or disappointed. (oooh.... did I just really use the word 'nary' in a sentence???)
The problem appears to not be finding people who will *PASS* a drug test.... the problem appears to be finding people who will *TAKE* a drug test.
A few years back, the heavy-equipment manufacturer JCB held a job fair... but when a throng of prospective employees learned the next step would be drug testing, an alarming thing happened: About half of them left.
The idea would be, I presume, that if the chip is there, manufacturers would have to have a means by which the consumer can activate it. It will do nothing for existing phones, but would make a difference for phones sold next year, for instance.
It has no value whether their belief is true or false, we already know that. A person who undergoes torture is focused entirely on escaping the mistreatment, not on giving accurate information.
Technically true... but it is only *after* they have a realization that what they believe to be the truth will not actually make the torture stop, that a person being tortured will generally resort to trying to fabricate whatever lie they think will make the torture stop. In absence of any evidence to indicate that it would not make the torturing stop, generally speaking, the first go-to response of a person being tortured who has been pushed beyond their endurance limit is to say what they believe to be the truth. In this way, one can argue that torture is effective at getting the truth, but if or when the truth is not verifiable, then torture is just a waste of everybody's time.
Torture is used because the people who use it believe, perhaps entirely sincerely, that the person they are torturing knows something that the people who are performing the torture either want to or need to know, and the importance of them knowing this is of more importance to them than the personhood of the person they are torturing. Of course. it has precisely zero effectiveness if this belief is mistaken.
It wouldn't make any difference if they were lying... but it would have made a difference if the videos were really just pranks, as apparently they said they were. An investigation may have still occurred if there was reason to suspect that something that they said was just a prank was something more than that, but if they had made the fact that it just a dramatization clear up front, then as long as they really weren't doing anything wrong, there'd be no problem.
That is kind of my point... if it was somehow made clear in advance that it was a dramatization and not a recording of an actual illegal event, then they wouldn't have gotten in any trouble... or else, as I said, the cops would go around arresting actors after they had portrayed a character doing something illegal.
Hell, all they would have had to put is a running subtitle text along the bottom, shown maybe once or twice during the first 15 to 30 seconds of the film "Dramatization only, not a recording of an actual crime in progress" and they would have been entirely in the clear.
Because if so, how is it any different than actors playing a role of some criminals on a tv show? They don't go around arresting the bad guys of fictional dramas, why should they do so here?
If they did not make this clear, however, I can see it being a problem.
This is only partially true. At its core, copyright is simply the right of exclusivity to control who may copy a work. In fact, one does naturally have this right of exclusivity if they do not ever share their work in the first place. After all, if nobody else has it, nobody else can copy it. Copyright suggests to the person it is being offered to that legally speaking, they would still have this exclusivity even after publishing (even if they do not any longer "naturally" possess it). Theoretically, this might encourage people who would otherwise be so concerned that people may copy their stuff without authorization that they would resort to self-censorship to publish their works anyways, and society could be enriched by them. Of course, that incentive only works to the extent that people voluntarily respect that law. Theoretically, the general public's incentive to respect copyright is supposed to come from the enrichment that the society receives from creators that may have otherwise not published at all, offering a continually diverse set of published works. If these incentives are not strong enough for either one party or the other, then copyright starts breaking down. This is where we seem to be at today, but I don't want to get into that too far.
Anyways, while copyright may not truly be any kind of natural right (although if you think about it, very few things really are), it *is* a kind of logical extension of something that could otherwise be an entirely natural right, but has been augmented to try and function in the real world.
"upgrade" generally implies improvement. When a so-called upgrade not only cannot offer improvement, but will actually make things *worse* for a person, the term is not an accurate one. One finds, in fact, that the *ONLY* way that one can say that Windows 10 does not actually make things any worse is to be simply dismissive of people's feelings and suggest that the issues they might complain about with the differences between versions shouldn't be so important to them in the first place.
Allowing end-user updates to the firmware (ie, not necessarily only vendor approved firmware images), while not allowing the end user to make updates to power utilization or frequencies used by the on-board radio.
I always figured that some might lock their firmware down entirely in response to the new regulations, but I also figured there would be some that wouldn't... and competition will probably drive virtually all of the manufacturers who would have otherwise allowed such end-user upgrades to their firmware to take place at all to still do so, while doing what linksys is doing, and prohibiting end-user alteration of the parameters needed for the radio transmitter.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the first time I've seen anything that was more than a proof of concept attack for Linux.
By your own admission that you know they are false statements, those are not actual assertions that you are making. Asserting something requires confidently believing that it is true. If you actually asserted either of those things, you'd probably run into some legal trouble if you pushed hard enough.
The biggest problem with censorship is that at its fundamental level, it is an attempt to control what people will know or believe, (since what information they are being allowed to access in the first place is controlled), and is an attempt to try and legislate what kinds of things people are even allowed to *THINK* about.
Nobody, no agency, no authority, no government, absolutely no power absolutely anywhere has any right to decide what any other human being should be allowed to think. Period.
While it certainly may suck if somebody makes an unfair decision about you because you did something spectacularly stupid or wrong a long time ago when that person is too narrow minded to consider how much time has actually elapsed since it occurred, but in the end that decision is still on them. Unfair shit happens to everybody in this world... heck, half of the people in this world are starving to death, and somebody living in a privileged nation thinks its unfair that an employer won't hire them because of some stupid shit that went down over a decade ago? It doesn't fucking matter whose fault it is when bad stuff happens to any us, it is still that person's individual responsibility to deal with it... and to continue to be the best person that they know how to be, and blaming past mistakes or blaming the fact that other people might not forgive us for them to justify why we aren't being better is just acting like a fucking crybaby. People who do so need to grow the hell up, act like adults, and and take responsibility for their OWN lives in the here and the now, instead of letting what people might believe about them dictate what choices they make.
(huff, puff, huff, puff, huff, puff.. Well, that turned into more of a rant than I first thought it would).
Only for people who haven't been already harmed by either losing their data entirely or else having paid them the ransom to recover it.
The story talks about an ecig exploding during *USE*, not while it was unattended... or in luggage on a plane.
Using it on a plane is a non-issue, since I can't remember the last time I was on a plane that allowed smoking at all during the flight.
And in matters of storage, why are batteries for ecigs more dangerous than any other kind of battery?
A sincere apology would be accompanied with an offer to make restitution to those who were harmed, or else pay the appropriate penalties for past wrongdoing.
Any so-called apology without at least one of these things is nothing of the sort.
Otherwise it comes across as they are only sorry that they won't continue doing it.
It looks about as humanoid as some toys by Fisher Price.
You say that like there is some sort of orchestrated conspiracy among them.
I would find it to be an opinion. It might be an opinion that differs from mine, or even an unconstructive opinion, but that doesn't make it sabotage.
Perhaps people who feel this way need to be reminded that not even a hundred years ago they could not vote in US elections because *THEIR* opinion didn't matter to society at the time.
Wow... so instead of assuming that people have different tastes, blame the fact that apparently a lot of men don't seem to like some shows that happen to be popular with a lot of women happen on their gender.
Could this story be any more sexist?
This kind of tripe makes me sick. Just sick.
The story's been out for an hour, and nary a comment about how it makes no sense to cure when they can keep profiting from ongoing treatment. I don't know whether to be relieved or disappointed. (oooh.... did I just really use the word 'nary' in a sentence???)
WIndshields? If you can convince regulators that it wouldn't impact visibility, maybe...
Does that count as a reference to Trump? Does this post? Does a response to any of these questions count as such?
Why would you think that there are no records of your calls if you use a land-line?
Just because something doesn't run out, doesn't mean that you never need more of it.
Ask any serious Lego enthusiast.
The idea would be, I presume, that if the chip is there, manufacturers would have to have a means by which the consumer can activate it. It will do nothing for existing phones, but would make a difference for phones sold next year, for instance.
Nobody would be twisting your arm and forcing you to use it if you don't want to.
Unless you are assuming that it will drive up your costs, what difference should it make to you?
Technically true... but it is only *after* they have a realization that what they believe to be the truth will not actually make the torture stop, that a person being tortured will generally resort to trying to fabricate whatever lie they think will make the torture stop. In absence of any evidence to indicate that it would not make the torturing stop, generally speaking, the first go-to response of a person being tortured who has been pushed beyond their endurance limit is to say what they believe to be the truth. In this way, one can argue that torture is effective at getting the truth, but if or when the truth is not verifiable, then torture is just a waste of everybody's time.
Torture is used because the people who use it believe, perhaps entirely sincerely, that the person they are torturing knows something that the people who are performing the torture either want to or need to know, and the importance of them knowing this is of more importance to them than the personhood of the person they are torturing. Of course. it has precisely zero effectiveness if this belief is mistaken.
It wouldn't make any difference if they were lying... but it would have made a difference if the videos were really just pranks, as apparently they said they were. An investigation may have still occurred if there was reason to suspect that something that they said was just a prank was something more than that, but if they had made the fact that it just a dramatization clear up front, then as long as they really weren't doing anything wrong, there'd be no problem.
That is kind of my point... if it was somehow made clear in advance that it was a dramatization and not a recording of an actual illegal event, then they wouldn't have gotten in any trouble... or else, as I said, the cops would go around arresting actors after they had portrayed a character doing something illegal.
Hell, all they would have had to put is a running subtitle text along the bottom, shown maybe once or twice during the first 15 to 30 seconds of the film "Dramatization only, not a recording of an actual crime in progress" and they would have been entirely in the clear.
Because if so, how is it any different than actors playing a role of some criminals on a tv show? They don't go around arresting the bad guys of fictional dramas, why should they do so here?
If they did not make this clear, however, I can see it being a problem.
This is only partially true. At its core, copyright is simply the right of exclusivity to control who may copy a work. In fact, one does naturally have this right of exclusivity if they do not ever share their work in the first place. After all, if nobody else has it, nobody else can copy it. Copyright suggests to the person it is being offered to that legally speaking, they would still have this exclusivity even after publishing (even if they do not any longer "naturally" possess it). Theoretically, this might encourage people who would otherwise be so concerned that people may copy their stuff without authorization that they would resort to self-censorship to publish their works anyways, and society could be enriched by them. Of course, that incentive only works to the extent that people voluntarily respect that law. Theoretically, the general public's incentive to respect copyright is supposed to come from the enrichment that the society receives from creators that may have otherwise not published at all, offering a continually diverse set of published works. If these incentives are not strong enough for either one party or the other, then copyright starts breaking down. This is where we seem to be at today, but I don't want to get into that too far.
Anyways, while copyright may not truly be any kind of natural right (although if you think about it, very few things really are), it *is* a kind of logical extension of something that could otherwise be an entirely natural right, but has been augmented to try and function in the real world.
"upgrade" generally implies improvement. When a so-called upgrade not only cannot offer improvement, but will actually make things *worse* for a person, the term is not an accurate one. One finds, in fact, that the *ONLY* way that one can say that Windows 10 does not actually make things any worse is to be simply dismissive of people's feelings and suggest that the issues they might complain about with the differences between versions shouldn't be so important to them in the first place.
Allowing end-user updates to the firmware (ie, not necessarily only vendor approved firmware images), while not allowing the end user to make updates to power utilization or frequencies used by the on-board radio.
I always figured that some might lock their firmware down entirely in response to the new regulations, but I also figured there would be some that wouldn't... and competition will probably drive virtually all of the manufacturers who would have otherwise allowed such end-user upgrades to their firmware to take place at all to still do so, while doing what linksys is doing, and prohibiting end-user alteration of the parameters needed for the radio transmitter.