Not only did they know about the breach long before they told anybody, they knew about the likelihood of a breach at a time when they might have drastically curtailed the damage of the one that was already in progress. All while they were arguing the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Such is corporate hubris.
Another way would be to pass legislation to require carriers to block prison locations from connecting to the towers, with a whitelist of IMEIs for prison staff.
Yet another way, (not to stop it so much as to make it less prevalent), would be to do away with the ridiculous, self-serving, and frankly lazy practice of private for-profit prisons. Fifteen bucks for a two-minute phone call? That's just fucking outrageous! At the root of all of this, is the undeniable fact that when you turn prisons into a profit centre, capitalism will guarantee that their population is ever-increasing; and if some, (or many), of those people don't belong there, well, that's just the price of 'progress' and 'security'.
Of course, maintaining this unfair and untenable situation is made much easier by the fact that the majority of the population is self-righteously happy with punishing those convicted of crimes, and doesn't care in the least about rehabilitating them.
... roughly 63 cents for every customer whose data was potentially exposed in its recent security breach.
A customer is someone who purchases a commodity or service. The vast majority of those put at risk by Equifax's fuckup were in no way "customers". Unless they were capable of purchasing EVERYTHING using cash, or opting out of mainstream society and living off the grid altogether, they had no true choice in the matter of whether or not their personal data was under Equifax care. Calling them customers implies that they were partly responsible for their misfortune because in having chosen to deal with an irresponsible vendor; the fact is that they are simply victims of a too-powerful company's careless disregard for its responsibilities and obligations.
Bell Canada knows that the majority of us Canadians aren't savvy enough or motivated to even find pirate sites in the first place, never mind installing TOR and/or using a VPN. This smacks to me of the attention-getting, politically-motivated posing that one expects from the media empire mouthpieces of companies like Bell. That "no judicial oversight" caveat seems ripe for all kinds of abuse that may have nothing to do with combatting piracy per se.
OTOH, maybe there are more pirates here in Canada than I thought, although I don't know any outside of my tech-centric friends.
The bigger Google gets, the more time I waste trying to trick its algorithm into not giving me everything-including-the-kitchen-sink results that are anything but "accurate". That seems to be the foundation for most business models these days - exchanging less and less value for more and more of money, data, or whatever.
As for tech companies "robbing us blind", why would we expect them to be any different in that regard from other kinds of corporations?
before "respect end-user privacy" and "honor your LinkedIn privacy and profile visibility settings" applies only to Office365 subscribers. I suspect Microsoft will make non-subscribers pay for their LinkedIn service with reduced control over their profiles.
when October 31st rolls around and everyone who has an iPhone 10 and is wearing a mask discovers that they have to take off part of their costume just to make a phone call. If part of their get-up is heavily applied makeup and/or latex, they may not be able to use their phones at all without pretty much destroying their disguise. In addition to Hallowe'en there are also Mardi Gras, parades, high school plays, and on and on.
A phone that's constantly scanning even strangers' faces without their consent is rude, obnoxious, insidious, and invasive. A phone that its owner might not be able to use while he or she is wearing a mask or heavy makeup, is just plain stupid. Way to go Apple!
It's also available for Microsoft Surface devices which just goes to show how much things have changed. Now it's no problem when MS does it but when Apple does it's "Orwellian and creepy".
It may be "available" for Surface, but is it required? AFAICT if you have an iPhone 10 you're stuck with using your face to unlock your phone whether you like it or not.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I have many very clear memories going back to when I was VERY young. At least two of them are from before the time when I was even attempting to walk, and at least one of them predates my ability to roll over from my back to my stomach. To me, the fact that I remember those moments so clearly, (along with the emotions I was feeling), is indicative of consciousness, and even self-consciousness. I realize now that in those moments I was very definitely experiencing the 'self / other' and 'self / world' dichotomies that psychologists and behaviourists talk about as developmental milestones.
Humans do not innately learn consciousness at all, and it was a very recent discovery and it is something that is taught, not picked up automatically...
If that's true, then it would seem that at least some of us learn it at a VERY young age. But the assertion that consciousness "is something that is taught" raises the question of who taught it to the first human who experienced it. That alone makes the whole premise at least somewhat dubious.
I too disagreed with Ed Tice's points, but you've rebutted him better and more thoroughly than I would have, and brought up points that I hadn't considered. It's too bad you posted AC - I'm out of mod points, but I feel your argument is important enough that I'm willing to burn the six or seven moderations I already made in this post, just to give it more visibility.
DRM schemes aren't going away and having standards around them seems like the best path forward.
Why? Standards tend to end fracturization. It seems pretty clear that DRM is a clusterfuck that can't work. If anything, having multiple schemes slows down the rate at which DRM schemes are broke which would be better for the content makers. The flip side is if DRM actually manages to not be broken is we then have a situation where a lot of content will be locked up possibly indefinitely. That's hardly a good thing.
Without DRM, you can't have content rental systems.
Good*.
It's been said many times that information wants to be free, but the content creators need to eat and the studio executives need to fuel a lavish lifestyle.
And a pony. Don't forget the pony.
Without some form of DRM you wouldn't be able to have subscription services like HBO Go or Amazon Prime.
Good*.
It's a fair criticism that when you "purchase" a movie or TV show using Amazon Prime or Apple TV or similar that it's really a long-term rental.
Well, since you acknowledge it's a fair criticism...
There was a time when a DRM-free purchase seemed like a great idea. But that was when we wanted to do things like download an entire movie and play on various devices. Now everything is streaming and you don't even notice the DRM.
Yes, we all have constant, unlimited streaming internet everywhere we go on every device we own and...oh wait, that's not true. Worse, everyone streaming everything is horrible inefficient and needlessly clogs up the internet when it could be used for better things--like having more space for lower latency phone, gaming, and actual content you're only going to watch once.
New standards will make it even less intrusive.
Uh, yea, no.
Yes part of Stallman's "Right to Read" is coming true in that you can't lend your DRM purchases very well and sharing your password isn't a great idea.
Ie Stallman was right, and you're proving exactly the point that there are people stupid enough to not give a fuck who are sending the rest of us downriver with their stupidity.
But also the prices have come down so much that there's no *need* for this.
This is the part about "information wants to be free". Prices have dropped not because of all the DRM and the streaming. It's because prices have dropped so much that we have so much content we can now stream. The DRM is just general stupidity.
Everybody can have their own access for a very affordable price so the doom and gloom predictions are not materializing.
It's enough that stuff I "buy" is not mine. That I might "own" most of it for twenty years and then for it to just disappear because some company that changed hands ten times finally died? Yea, no biggy. That I lost several games and shows over those twenty years because the "right" to stream was lost? No biggy. Who cares so long as I can get the latest, most popular thing, right?
I'm glad EFF resigned because I'd like to see them focus their attention on more important issues.
Yep, the EFF shouldn't involve itself with the W3C and web standards. More important issues than one of the chief mediums of information exchange on the inte
"User-Customizable"? You do realize this is Apple we're talking about, right? To the folks in Cupertino, what you're suggesting is tantamount to painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
What I want is for people to stop bending over when a company demands that you use DRM to view content.
This, exactly. Although I'm disappointed in W3C's decision, it has no practical effect on me. I simply don't cave in to Digital Restrictions Management - either I bypass it, or I entirely forego the content that sits behind it and consider it the provider's loss, not mine.
My greatest concern is that if the only browser I consider worth using doesn't support the standard adequately, it may be abandoned by enough of the 'bootlickers' that its continued existence is threatened.
This is precisely why cryptocurrency was invented - to skirt the law and avoid moral responsibilities. Its sole purpose is as an enabler of criminal activity.
Just fucking ban this fake monopoly money bullshit already.
Found the government shill!
I'd point out the fallacies in your 'argument', but they're so obvious that I won't bother, since you've already drunk the Kool-Aid and had that little mind of yours permanently made up for you.
Good to see slashdot user ids keep growing. Yay astroturfing!
Huh? I'm not sure what you're referring to. If it's my relatively high UID you're talking about, then please note that although I'm far below the rarefied atmosphere of a mid-six-digiter like you, I'm hardly new here. As for "astroturfing" - say what?
The problem was that nobody told the students not to cheat. Now that that little misunderstanding has been cleared up, the problem is fixed.
The problem is that the corporations that many of these students will end up working for rely on various kinds of cheating as vital components of their business models. "Do as I say, not as I do" just doesn't fly, and for good reason.
As for the admonition not to "Google solutions", does the dean not understand that these students will be doing just that when they enter the workforce?
1. If a person is on food stamps, they pretty much should not have enough money to buy a smartphone with data plan to use EBT apps....? Food stamps are for the poor, and the TRULY poor people can't afford luxuries like smart phones....if they can afford those, they can afford to buy their own food.
If I'm out pounding the pavement looking for a job, chances are I NEED a smartphone and a data plan to chase down opportunities on the web, to send and reply to emails, and to help me not get lost when I'm in an unfamiliar part of town trying to make it to an interview on time. For a pretty large percentage of the population, (and perhaps even more so for the poor), a connected smartphone is no longer a luxury.
Even Google can't dismiss a fine of almost 3 billion dollars as a mere cost of doing business. Penalties for corporate abuses need to be truly painful if they're to serve as deterrents.
I'd like to think that we're (the world) smarter than that, and that we (the readers of this forum) are the smart people in the room.
I'd like to think that too, but I see a lot of evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong - I think a lot of the world, (and a lot of Slashdotters), are fundamentally "smarter than that". But 'fundamentally' is key here - the natural intelligence displayed by most of us has been co-opted and perverted to a greater or lesser degree by various kinds of propaganda, organized distractions, and other mechanisms that might best be described as (dare I say it?), 'mind control'.
... so let's anticipate the problem and fix it.
Again, I agree. But even if we can get a majority to see what's coming, how do you propose we act? As far as I can tell, doing so will require changing the premises on which our economic system is based, followed by wholesale change of said system. Very powerful, resourceful, yet closed-minded entities will throw everything they've got behind maintaining the status quo which gives them power. And convincing enough of them to matter, that their own survival ultimately depends on them ceding a lot of their control and a lot of their wealth NOW, doesn't seem to be going very well. They've conned enough of the populace into admiring the emperor's new clothes that it's very easy to ignore those who point out that the emperor is buck naked.
We need to make changes. How do we do that?
Historically, changes on that scale happen via revolution. But even that is only a temporary solution. Old habits of thought, and the old lack of realization of how short-sighted our instinctive human survival mechanisms can be, soon reassert themselves; then the new systems start to look a lot like the old ones.
For a fascinating view of just what we're up against in making the kind of change we need, check out Morris Berman's book 'Wandering God". It delves so deeply into the roots of who we are that at first glance it may seem beside the point I'm making; but in fact it's very much to the point of just about any discussion we have about changing our social, political, and economic structures.
Please tell me, how can (un)installing one application cause issues with other applications that will not be caused when both applications are installed as snaps?
Explanation here. Basically, Snaps include most of the dependencies they need to run, so installing or upgrading one package is much less likely to break another by changing system-wide library versions and other dependencies. Probably uses a lot more disk space, but that's cheap enough these days that it's probably worth using it to avoid the Linux equivalent of DLL Hell.
Let's start with our own media and politicians who can say whatever they want without any accountability. This is the new millennium "boy who cried wolf". With the deluge of fake news, misinformation, disinformation and unsubstantiated information that we are bombarded with daily people are now disbelieving of anything and everything. Before we concern ourselves with foreign "information" we need to first get our own house in order.
No clue why you were down-modded - what you're saying makes perfect sense to me. I understand that the 'intelligence community' needs to concern itself with foreign influences; but really, as you've pointed out, the more direct, present, day-to-day threat to democracy and social well-being comes from within. Yammering about vague foreign threats is just one more circus act distracting the populace from how they're being lied to and screwed over by corporations and by their own governments.
Slashdot Mirror
to fool Mother Nature.
Hands up if you're old enough to remember that TV commercial!
Not only did they know about the breach long before they told anybody, they knew about the likelihood of a breach at a time when they might have drastically curtailed the damage of the one that was already in progress. All while they were arguing the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Such is corporate hubris.
Another way would be to pass legislation to require carriers to block prison locations from connecting to the towers, with a whitelist of IMEIs for prison staff.
Yet another way, (not to stop it so much as to make it less prevalent), would be to do away with the ridiculous, self-serving, and frankly lazy practice of private for-profit prisons. Fifteen bucks for a two-minute phone call? That's just fucking outrageous! At the root of all of this, is the undeniable fact that when you turn prisons into a profit centre, capitalism will guarantee that their population is ever-increasing; and if some, (or many), of those people don't belong there, well, that's just the price of 'progress' and 'security'.
Of course, maintaining this unfair and untenable situation is made much easier by the fact that the majority of the population is self-righteously happy with punishing those convicted of crimes, and doesn't care in the least about rehabilitating them.
Tasteless AND funny - good job!
... roughly 63 cents for every customer whose data was potentially exposed in its recent security breach.
A customer is someone who purchases a commodity or service. The vast majority of those put at risk by Equifax's fuckup were in no way "customers". Unless they were capable of purchasing EVERYTHING using cash, or opting out of mainstream society and living off the grid altogether, they had no true choice in the matter of whether or not their personal data was under Equifax care. Calling them customers implies that they were partly responsible for their misfortune because in having chosen to deal with an irresponsible vendor; the fact is that they are simply victims of a too-powerful company's careless disregard for its responsibilities and obligations.
Basically people will just browse to http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/ instead of https://thepiratebay.org and completely ignore whatever restriction the local government is trying to put.
Bell Canada knows that the majority of us Canadians aren't savvy enough or motivated to even find pirate sites in the first place, never mind installing TOR and/or using a VPN. This smacks to me of the attention-getting, politically-motivated posing that one expects from the media empire mouthpieces of companies like Bell. That "no judicial oversight" caveat seems ripe for all kinds of abuse that may have nothing to do with combatting piracy per se.
OTOH, maybe there are more pirates here in Canada than I thought, although I don't know any outside of my tech-centric friends.
more accurate search results
The bigger Google gets, the more time I waste trying to trick its algorithm into not giving me everything-including-the-kitchen-sink results that are anything but "accurate". That seems to be the foundation for most business models these days - exchanging less and less value for more and more of money, data, or whatever.
As for tech companies "robbing us blind", why would we expect them to be any different in that regard from other kinds of corporations?
before "respect end-user privacy" and "honor your LinkedIn privacy and profile visibility settings" applies only to Office365 subscribers. I suspect Microsoft will make non-subscribers pay for their LinkedIn service with reduced control over their profiles.
when October 31st rolls around and everyone who has an iPhone 10 and is wearing a mask discovers that they have to take off part of their costume just to make a phone call. If part of their get-up is heavily applied makeup and/or latex, they may not be able to use their phones at all without pretty much destroying their disguise. In addition to Hallowe'en there are also Mardi Gras, parades, high school plays, and on and on.
A phone that's constantly scanning even strangers' faces without their consent is rude, obnoxious, insidious, and invasive. A phone that its owner might not be able to use while he or she is wearing a mask or heavy makeup, is just plain stupid. Way to go Apple!
It's also available for Microsoft Surface devices which just goes to show how much things have changed. Now it's no problem when MS does it but when Apple does it's "Orwellian and creepy".
It may be "available" for Surface, but is it required? AFAICT if you have an iPhone 10 you're stuck with using your face to unlock your phone whether you like it or not.
Babies are not conscious.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I have many very clear memories going back to when I was VERY young. At least two of them are from before the time when I was even attempting to walk, and at least one of them predates my ability to roll over from my back to my stomach. To me, the fact that I remember those moments so clearly, (along with the emotions I was feeling), is indicative of consciousness, and even self-consciousness. I realize now that in those moments I was very definitely experiencing the 'self / other' and 'self / world' dichotomies that psychologists and behaviourists talk about as developmental milestones.
Humans do not innately learn consciousness at all, and it was a very recent discovery and it is something that is taught, not picked up automatically ...
If that's true, then it would seem that at least some of us learn it at a VERY young age. But the assertion that consciousness "is something that is taught" raises the question of who taught it to the first human who experienced it. That alone makes the whole premise at least somewhat dubious.
I too disagreed with Ed Tice's points, but you've rebutted him better and more thoroughly than I would have, and brought up points that I hadn't considered. It's too bad you posted AC - I'm out of mod points, but I feel your argument is important enough that I'm willing to burn the six or seven moderations I already made in this post, just to give it more visibility.
Why? Standards tend to end fracturization. It seems pretty clear that DRM is a clusterfuck that can't work. If anything, having multiple schemes slows down the rate at which DRM schemes are broke which would be better for the content makers. The flip side is if DRM actually manages to not be broken is we then have a situation where a lot of content will be locked up possibly indefinitely. That's hardly a good thing.
Good*.
And a pony. Don't forget the pony.
Good*.
Well, since you acknowledge it's a fair criticism...
Yes, we all have constant, unlimited streaming internet everywhere we go on every device we own and...oh wait, that's not true. Worse, everyone streaming everything is horrible inefficient and needlessly clogs up the internet when it could be used for better things--like having more space for lower latency phone, gaming, and actual content you're only going to watch once.
Uh, yea, no.
Ie Stallman was right, and you're proving exactly the point that there are people stupid enough to not give a fuck who are sending the rest of us downriver with their stupidity.
This is the part about "information wants to be free". Prices have dropped not because of all the DRM and the streaming. It's because prices have dropped so much that we have so much content we can now stream. The DRM is just general stupidity.
It's enough that stuff I "buy" is not mine. That I might "own" most of it for twenty years and then for it to just disappear because some company that changed hands ten times finally died? Yea, no biggy. That I lost several games and shows over those twenty years because the "right" to stream was lost? No biggy. Who cares so long as I can get the latest, most popular thing, right?
Yep, the EFF shouldn't involve itself with the W3C and web standards. More important issues than one of the chief mediums of information exchange on the inte
Ever since Schiller's said that word, it's nearly lost all meaning.
I'd say it's gained a meaning. In addition to "the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery ...", the word now also signifies "defensiveness about one's flawed logic and poor aesthetic sense, arising from a grandiose persecution complex".
... maybe user-customizable super-important priority indicators ...
"User-Customizable"? You do realize this is Apple we're talking about, right? To the folks in Cupertino, what you're suggesting is tantamount to painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
What I want is for people to stop bending over when a company demands that you use DRM to view content.
This, exactly. Although I'm disappointed in W3C's decision, it has no practical effect on me. I simply don't cave in to Digital Restrictions Management - either I bypass it, or I entirely forego the content that sits behind it and consider it the provider's loss, not mine.
My greatest concern is that if the only browser I consider worth using doesn't support the standard adequately, it may be abandoned by enough of the 'bootlickers' that its continued existence is threatened.
I'm not going to have "I MISS /." carved on my headstone.
If you'll give me the name of the cemetery where you plan to be buried, and the plot number, I'll be happy to have that taken care of for you... ;-)
Samsung will add a 'feature' to the battery pack control electronics that spies on the car's occupants and reports back to headquartes in Seoul.
This is precisely why cryptocurrency was invented - to skirt the law and avoid moral responsibilities. Its sole purpose is as an enabler of criminal activity.
Just fucking ban this fake monopoly money bullshit already.
Found the government shill!
I'd point out the fallacies in your 'argument', but they're so obvious that I won't bother, since you've already drunk the Kool-Aid and had that little mind of yours permanently made up for you.
Good to see slashdot user ids keep growing. Yay astroturfing!
Huh? I'm not sure what you're referring to. If it's my relatively high UID you're talking about, then please note that although I'm far below the rarefied atmosphere of a mid-six-digiter like you, I'm hardly new here. As for "astroturfing" - say what?
The problem was that nobody told the students not to cheat. Now that that little misunderstanding has been cleared up, the problem is fixed.
The problem is that the corporations that many of these students will end up working for rely on various kinds of cheating as vital components of their business models. "Do as I say, not as I do" just doesn't fly, and for good reason.
As for the admonition not to "Google solutions", does the dean not understand that these students will be doing just that when they enter the workforce?
A couple of things I see.
1. If a person is on food stamps, they pretty much should not have enough money to buy a smartphone with data plan to use EBT apps....? Food stamps are for the poor, and the TRULY poor people can't afford luxuries like smart phones....if they can afford those, they can afford to buy their own food.
If I'm out pounding the pavement looking for a job, chances are I NEED a smartphone and a data plan to chase down opportunities on the web, to send and reply to emails, and to help me not get lost when I'm in an unfamiliar part of town trying to make it to an interview on time. For a pretty large percentage of the population, (and perhaps even more so for the poor), a connected smartphone is no longer a luxury.
Even Google can't dismiss a fine of almost 3 billion dollars as a mere cost of doing business. Penalties for corporate abuses need to be truly painful if they're to serve as deterrents.
I'd like to think that we're (the world) smarter than that, and that we (the readers of this forum) are the smart people in the room.
I'd like to think that too, but I see a lot of evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong - I think a lot of the world, (and a lot of Slashdotters), are fundamentally "smarter than that". But 'fundamentally' is key here - the natural intelligence displayed by most of us has been co-opted and perverted to a greater or lesser degree by various kinds of propaganda, organized distractions, and other mechanisms that might best be described as (dare I say it?), 'mind control'.
... so let's anticipate the problem and fix it.
Again, I agree. But even if we can get a majority to see what's coming, how do you propose we act? As far as I can tell, doing so will require changing the premises on which our economic system is based, followed by wholesale change of said system. Very powerful, resourceful, yet closed-minded entities will throw everything they've got behind maintaining the status quo which gives them power. And convincing enough of them to matter, that their own survival ultimately depends on them ceding a lot of their control and a lot of their wealth NOW, doesn't seem to be going very well. They've conned enough of the populace into admiring the emperor's new clothes that it's very easy to ignore those who point out that the emperor is buck naked.
We need to make changes. How do we do that?
Historically, changes on that scale happen via revolution. But even that is only a temporary solution. Old habits of thought, and the old lack of realization of how short-sighted our instinctive human survival mechanisms can be, soon reassert themselves; then the new systems start to look a lot like the old ones.
For a fascinating view of just what we're up against in making the kind of change we need, check out Morris Berman's book 'Wandering God". It delves so deeply into the roots of who we are that at first glance it may seem beside the point I'm making; but in fact it's very much to the point of just about any discussion we have about changing our social, political, and economic structures.
Please tell me, how can (un)installing one application cause issues with other applications that will not be caused when both applications are installed as snaps?
Explanation here. Basically, Snaps include most of the dependencies they need to run, so installing or upgrading one package is much less likely to break another by changing system-wide library versions and other dependencies. Probably uses a lot more disk space, but that's cheap enough these days that it's probably worth using it to avoid the Linux equivalent of DLL Hell.
Let's start with our own media and politicians who can say whatever they want without any accountability. This is the new millennium "boy who cried wolf". With the deluge of fake news, misinformation, disinformation and unsubstantiated information that we are bombarded with daily people are now disbelieving of anything and everything. Before we concern ourselves with foreign "information" we need to first get our own house in order.
No clue why you were down-modded - what you're saying makes perfect sense to me. I understand that the 'intelligence community' needs to concern itself with foreign influences; but really, as you've pointed out, the more direct, present, day-to-day threat to democracy and social well-being comes from within. Yammering about vague foreign threats is just one more circus act distracting the populace from how they're being lied to and screwed over by corporations and by their own governments.