Upgrading to a different browser, on the other hand, is what most people do quite regularly. Usuallly it involves a few minutes at most.
And remember all the outrage when a lot of web banking sites/etc. used to require IE? It wasn't that long along, and there was plenty of outrage about how people should be free to use whatever browser they want to use, that it isn't fair to do so, etc., even when most of those sites were doing so because they were using security controls that only worked in IE. If it wasn't fair to require one browser then, why is it fair to tax one browser now?
Self-defined phrases like that are typical in laws and contracts, etc. Prisoners would be included in "all people", but should they have a right to unmonitored internet access? What about school-aged children having the right to an uncensored [school-provided] internet? What about organizations, do they not have the right to freely associate online, or protect their identity? The purpose of "meaningless terms" like "digital citizen" is that you give them meaning.
Well, so far I've heard at least 2 different interpretations of the amendment - you say it updates a "grossly outdated law," although you fail to mention how, and someone else claims it adds harassment to the current standard for libel and slander. Considering the discrepancy between people who claim to understand how this law is being amended, I believe my skepticism regarding its necessity is valid.
Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
So you think it's unnecessary because you don't understand something you refuse to read?
Here's an example of a law done right:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note how the writer does not specify what is meant by "papers and effects;" this is to mean that the law is all encompassing regarding those items, so it doesn't matter if your "papers" are actual, physical paper or digital documents stored on a physical medium, they're both covered (FYI, this particular gem was written a good 250 years before the advent of flash drives, yet they are still covered).
You do realize that's the Fourth Amendment, right? You're citing an amendment as support of your argument that good laws shouldn't need to be amended? But let's play along. There are innumerable federal/state laws and legal precedent that detail what is and isn't considered probable cause, reasonable search and siezure, exceptions, etc. These things are all explicitly defined at lower levels, a constitutional right is the broad concept that more specific legal code must comply with. Detailed, granular laws about what does and doesn't make for legitimate search and seizure most definitely exist, the Fourth Amendment is not the beginning and the end of all legal code regarding it.
Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much? That's not what it does, and "the internet" isn't the only thing it's trying to address. But since that's the meat of your argument here, let's pretend it did - it would only have to amend the law if the existing law specified methods that were not covered by that mediums or process. Plenty (if not an overwhelming majority) of laws detail ways or mediums in which the violation has to occur, why is updating a grossly outdated standard that unreasonable to you? That's what happens when new technology creates new ways to do things. The legal system isn't a set of basic commandments, "thou shalt not slander" - laws explicitly enumerate the ways in which they can be broken, what damages can be assessed and how they are substantiated, etc. For example, let's say a spam law about postal mail was created a couple decades ago - it would explicitly describe conditions relevant to postal mail, why shouldn't it be amended to include email when it came out? Why should a law explicitly about telephones not have been amended to cover cellphones? The only time anyone talks about changing a law for new technology is because the existing letter of the law doesn't cover it. I don't know how a community with as much development and programming experience as/. always seems to assume laws "just work" like users think a program does. The new technology is outside the scope of the current code's conditions, and has consequences the old developers could not have forseen. Whether it's a script or a law, code for a growing and changing environment will likely need to be patched and updated.
Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
There isn't. This bill is an amendment to the current law.
The fact that truth is not a defense is the single most fucked up thing I have ever heard and pretty much destroys any faith I have in the legal system.
It's also shenanigans, because the very first defense listed in the bill is truthful statements:
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the
imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
You should probably respond less to the headline and more to the article - this isn't a bill "to identify trolls", it's a bill about harassment and defamation. The very first thing in the bill, which is an amendment to existing defamation law, is that the statement has to have cause or be able to likely cause serious harm. And that's followed by exceptions for just what you're concerned about - matters of public interest, honest opinions, truthful statements. Even those of us who strongly advocate the freedom of speech don't deny that it can be abused, and that things like threats and slander should be legally actionable.
What a hacker does not do, is produce a solution that will be easily maintained.
This. A thousand times, this.
A well-rounded IT staff would be better off with more money for staying up-to-date with training and new technology than having someone dedicated to hacking together ductape solutions and bandaid fixes because the business doesn't want to spend the money/time on the right tools to doing things the right way.
Hackjobs are a nightmare to maintain, inherit or scale up, and they're usually a bit shortsighted when it comes to conditions the hacker didn't expect or think about. You should think outside the box, but you need to need to make sure what you're making will fit back inside it. The approach and the knowledge you gain from it can be really useful, but I don't want to have to do something like find a way to force an insufficient PBX to meet a company's needs any more than I want to hold my car's bumper on with bungee cords.
The difference is that Hulu's model is like television advertising, a company pays for their ad to be shown to a target audience (like during a specific show), whereas Facebook is just showing contextual web ads (and sells on things like "have your ad come up for everyone who lists cars in their likes, or lists themselves as single"). Facebook is (like other websites are) selling the users/visitors as content to whoever wants a piece, Hulu gets the media content you want to watch by having it sponsored by advertisers - for a made-up example, Old Spice gets to show you ads during Burn Notice because they paid to make it available to you.
Hulu could stand to learn from this. In general their ads are just what they are, but they always have that "Is this ad relevant to you?" thing up in the corner. There's some ads that I dislike, so much, I actually take the effort to click no on. Surprisingly I then continue to see those ads over and over again.
Why would that be surprising? It's long-term marketing feedback, no one is going to look at that until the ad campaign is over or up for renewal. It's for the benefit of Hulu/the advertisers, so they can correlate future ad campaigns to demographics and usage, not for you to opt out of or vote away an existing ad. Hulu has sold to Company A that Ad B to be played during Term C for Target Audience D, so Ad B will continue to be played under those conditions until Term C is over. That vote against the ad isn't going to count until they're planning their next ad campaign.
Oversimplifying a bit, the FBI handles the investigation and prosecution of federal criminal offenses, the marshal service provides security for the federal court system (personnel, buildings, endangered witnesses) and hunts down fugitives. They're more or less national-level court officers.
Really? So poor people have to drink soda because they can't afford water? Walmart shows a 24ct case of.5 liter water for $3.48 online. A quick look around my house found a Rite Aid pharmacy add for 3 12-can packs of Pepsi for just under $11 with a loyalty card. That comes out to roughly $3.66 per 12-can pack. Looks to me like water is actually in most cases cheaper than sugary drinks like soda. How about that.
And that's with ignoring the facts that you can safely presume all of these people have running water at home, most of the places they're going to go in the day will have sinks and/or water fountains, water's usually free at restaurants, and per bottle size it's at most the same price as soda at convenience stores (usually cheaper).
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some way to turn it off
Nope. There *was* a way to, in the Developer's Preview, an obscure registry entry that wasn't obvious to anyone, but when the Consumer Preview rolled around, it was removed, and legacy code in Explorer was removed yet still in the Beta to *make damn sure* nobody can turn off Metro.
Oh, I know the prior method for turning it off is gone. But it's hard to say there won't be a way to do it until we see group policy templates.
I don't think 8 is geared for enterprise at all.
There's a dedicated Enterprise version for volume licensing. It and Pro, like usual, take the "normal" version and give it the abilities to join a domain, process group policy, use EFS, host RDP, etc.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some way to turn it off. Metro really wouldn't fly for businesses or kiosks. It'd likely end up being buried somewhere, like how you can disable the Windows 7 startup sound via group/local policy.
The whole point of DHS was to make and maintain a clean division of roles. The TSA's only part of that, things like FEMA and the secret service have been moved under that umbrella as well. The FBI is supposed to be the national-level police force, they shouldn't be getting involved in industry regulation and policy.
UEFI is an OEM Software Vendor's bald-faced grab at monopoly power. Microsoft would be the key generator. Redhat would pay Microsoft a one-time fee per user machine, which RH figures likely to be a one-time $99 fee. This charge would be per machine, not per user, as it is likely that no 2 computers on the same network can have the same key.
I couldn't make it through the first paragraph without hitting ridiculous levels of FUD. MS isn't the key generator. They're not even the generator of their own key. The license isn't per-machine, it's per-source/vendor. There's no kind of per-machine restriction, in any way, shape or form.
This secure boot initiative is *entirely* Microsoft's doing. They're trying to leverage their faltering monopoly into a market where their competitors have to pay them for the privilege of being able to sell their own products. (Sadly, I'm *not* expecting anti-trust consequences for this. Not because it isn't deserved, but because I'm too jaded to think it's actually going to happen.)
Or maybe because it makes very little sense. MS didn't create secure boot, and they don't control it or the licensing for it. They want it turned on for Windows 8 certified machines, with their key loaded in. Another OS source can run their own licensing server if they wanted the cost and responsibility, they can provide their own keys if they want the hassle of giving the users instructions on how to load it manually, or they can just ignore the feature altogether if they're ok with leaving that vulnerability open when people disable the feature (on x86 systems) to install their software. MS doesn't control secure boot licensing. They just added the option to piggyback through them as an inexpensive convenience, which they don't even profit from since the entire $99 goes to Verisign.
Secure boot, which is what you're concerned about, is just a feature in UEFI. Which has been the BIOS replacement for years. It's not new, it's not an MS creation, and it's not limited to secure boot. Saying you won't buy any PC or mobo that has UEFI because of secure boot is like saying you won't buy any with BIOS if it doesn't have overclocking settings.
Replace "UEFI" with "BIOS" in your first sentence and see how it sounds. Because that's what it is. It's not some MS feature or add-on, not some kind of evil conspiracy, it's the new BIOS. And it's not that "new". And part of the Windows 8 certification requirements for x86_64 systems is that the secure boot feature, which also isn't an MS invention, can be disabled. So that address your concern about buying PCs and motherboards that won't let you disable the feature you actually have a problem about.
That's where something like an elliptical/exercise bike dual trainer can come in handy. Now you've got somewhere to stand and walk, sit down and pedal, or just sit down, all without going somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Upgrading to a different browser, on the other hand, is what most people do quite regularly. Usuallly it involves a few minutes at most.
And remember all the outrage when a lot of web banking sites /etc. used to require IE? It wasn't that long along, and there was plenty of outrage about how people should be free to use whatever browser they want to use, that it isn't fair to do so, etc., even when most of those sites were doing so because they were using security controls that only worked in IE. If it wasn't fair to require one browser then, why is it fair to tax one browser now?
Self-defined phrases like that are typical in laws and contracts, etc. Prisoners would be included in "all people", but should they have a right to unmonitored internet access? What about school-aged children having the right to an uncensored [school-provided] internet? What about organizations, do they not have the right to freely associate online, or protect their identity? The purpose of "meaningless terms" like "digital citizen" is that you give them meaning.
Generalizations are bad, mmkay? There are more politicians like Issa and Amash out there.
Well, so far I've heard at least 2 different interpretations of the amendment - you say it updates a "grossly outdated law," although you fail to mention how, and someone else claims it adds harassment to the current standard for libel and slander. Considering the discrepancy between people who claim to understand how this law is being amended, I believe my skepticism regarding its necessity is valid.
Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
So you think it's unnecessary because you don't understand something you refuse to read?
Here's an example of a law done right:
Note how the writer does not specify what is meant by "papers and effects;" this is to mean that the law is all encompassing regarding those items, so it doesn't matter if your "papers" are actual, physical paper or digital documents stored on a physical medium, they're both covered (FYI, this particular gem was written a good 250 years before the advent of flash drives, yet they are still covered).
You do realize that's the Fourth Amendment, right? You're citing an amendment as support of your argument that good laws shouldn't need to be amended? But let's play along. There are innumerable federal/state laws and legal precedent that detail what is and isn't considered probable cause, reasonable search and siezure, exceptions, etc. These things are all explicitly defined at lower levels, a constitutional right is the broad concept that more specific legal code must comply with. Detailed, granular laws about what does and doesn't make for legitimate search and seizure most definitely exist, the Fourth Amendment is not the beginning and the end of all legal code regarding it.
Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much? That's not what it does, and "the internet" isn't the only thing it's trying to address. But since that's the meat of your argument here, let's pretend it did - it would only have to amend the law if the existing law specified methods that were not covered by that mediums or process. Plenty (if not an overwhelming majority) of laws detail ways or mediums in which the violation has to occur, why is updating a grossly outdated standard that unreasonable to you? That's what happens when new technology creates new ways to do things. The legal system isn't a set of basic commandments, "thou shalt not slander" - laws explicitly enumerate the ways in which they can be broken, what damages can be assessed and how they are substantiated, etc. For example, let's say a spam law about postal mail was created a couple decades ago - it would explicitly describe conditions relevant to postal mail, why shouldn't it be amended to include email when it came out? Why should a law explicitly about telephones not have been amended to cover cellphones? The only time anyone talks about changing a law for new technology is because the existing letter of the law doesn't cover it. I don't know how a community with as much development and programming experience as /. always seems to assume laws "just work" like users think a program does. The new technology is outside the scope of the current code's conditions, and has consequences the old developers could not have forseen. Whether it's a script or a law, code for a growing and changing environment will likely need to be patched and updated.
I'd wager to guess the "low-hanging fruit" are actually the overwhelming majority, not "professional" trolls.
Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
There isn't. This bill is an amendment to the current law.
The fact that truth is not a defense is the single most fucked up thing I have ever heard and pretty much destroys any faith I have in the legal system.
It's also shenanigans, because the very first defense listed in the bill is truthful statements:
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
You should probably respond less to the headline and more to the article - this isn't a bill "to identify trolls", it's a bill about harassment and defamation. The very first thing in the bill, which is an amendment to existing defamation law, is that the statement has to have cause or be able to likely cause serious harm. And that's followed by exceptions for just what you're concerned about - matters of public interest, honest opinions, truthful statements. Even those of us who strongly advocate the freedom of speech don't deny that it can be abused, and that things like threats and slander should be legally actionable.
What a hacker does not do, is produce a solution that will be easily maintained.
This. A thousand times, this.
A well-rounded IT staff would be better off with more money for staying up-to-date with training and new technology than having someone dedicated to hacking together ductape solutions and bandaid fixes because the business doesn't want to spend the money/time on the right tools to doing things the right way.
Hackjobs are a nightmare to maintain, inherit or scale up, and they're usually a bit shortsighted when it comes to conditions the hacker didn't expect or think about. You should think outside the box, but you need to need to make sure what you're making will fit back inside it. The approach and the knowledge you gain from it can be really useful, but I don't want to have to do something like find a way to force an insufficient PBX to meet a company's needs any more than I want to hold my car's bumper on with bungee cords.
The difference is that Hulu's model is like television advertising, a company pays for their ad to be shown to a target audience (like during a specific show), whereas Facebook is just showing contextual web ads (and sells on things like "have your ad come up for everyone who lists cars in their likes, or lists themselves as single"). Facebook is (like other websites are) selling the users/visitors as content to whoever wants a piece, Hulu gets the media content you want to watch by having it sponsored by advertisers - for a made-up example, Old Spice gets to show you ads during Burn Notice because they paid to make it available to you.
Hulu could stand to learn from this. In general their ads are just what they are, but they always have that "Is this ad relevant to you?" thing up in the corner. There's some ads that I dislike, so much, I actually take the effort to click no on. Surprisingly I then continue to see those ads over and over again.
Why would that be surprising? It's long-term marketing feedback, no one is going to look at that until the ad campaign is over or up for renewal. It's for the benefit of Hulu/the advertisers, so they can correlate future ad campaigns to demographics and usage, not for you to opt out of or vote away an existing ad. Hulu has sold to Company A that Ad B to be played during Term C for Target Audience D, so Ad B will continue to be played under those conditions until Term C is over. That vote against the ad isn't going to count until they're planning their next ad campaign.
Oversimplifying a bit, the FBI handles the investigation and prosecution of federal criminal offenses, the marshal service provides security for the federal court system (personnel, buildings, endangered witnesses) and hunts down fugitives. They're more or less national-level court officers.
Really? So poor people have to drink soda because they can't afford water? Walmart shows a 24ct case of .5 liter water for $3.48 online. A quick look around my house found a Rite Aid pharmacy add for 3 12-can packs of Pepsi for just under $11 with a loyalty card. That comes out to roughly $3.66 per 12-can pack. Looks to me like water is actually in most cases cheaper than sugary drinks like soda. How about that.
And that's with ignoring the facts that you can safely presume all of these people have running water at home, most of the places they're going to go in the day will have sinks and/or water fountains, water's usually free at restaurants, and per bottle size it's at most the same price as soda at convenience stores (usually cheaper).
Livestrong is not a scientific publication.
Now that's just assinine to the point of being fallacious. They cite their sources.
"'The initial capacity to operate in hostile networks has been achieved,'" Took them 6 years to notice their ethernet cable wasnt plugged in?
No, they were downloading a copy of Windows XP when the jerk stopped seeding at 99%.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some way to turn it off
Nope. There *was* a way to, in the Developer's Preview, an obscure registry entry that wasn't obvious to anyone, but when the Consumer Preview rolled around, it was removed, and legacy code in Explorer was removed yet still in the Beta to *make damn sure* nobody can turn off Metro.
Oh, I know the prior method for turning it off is gone. But it's hard to say there won't be a way to do it until we see group policy templates.
I don't think 8 is geared for enterprise at all.
There's a dedicated Enterprise version for volume licensing. It and Pro, like usual, take the "normal" version and give it the abilities to join a domain, process group policy, use EFS, host RDP, etc.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some way to turn it off. Metro really wouldn't fly for businesses or kiosks. It'd likely end up being buried somewhere, like how you can disable the Windows 7 startup sound via group/local policy.
The whole point of DHS was to make and maintain a clean division of roles. The TSA's only part of that, things like FEMA and the secret service have been moved under that umbrella as well. The FBI is supposed to be the national-level police force, they shouldn't be getting involved in industry regulation and policy.
> I. REALLY. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. SEE. YOU. IN. HIGH. HEELS. AND. A. MINISKIRT.
It's an *Anonymous* Coward on Slashdot, so you cannot possibly know who he or she is, and what their looks are.
It's an Anonymous Coward on *Slashdot*, you can pretty safely guess what his looks are.
UEFI is an OEM Software Vendor's bald-faced grab at monopoly power. Microsoft would be the key generator. Redhat would pay Microsoft a one-time fee per user machine, which RH figures likely to be a one-time $99 fee. This charge would be per machine, not per user, as it is likely that no 2 computers on the same network can have the same key.
I couldn't make it through the first paragraph without hitting ridiculous levels of FUD. MS isn't the key generator. They're not even the generator of their own key. The license isn't per-machine, it's per-source/vendor. There's no kind of per-machine restriction, in any way, shape or form.
This secure boot initiative is *entirely* Microsoft's doing. They're trying to leverage their faltering monopoly into a market where their competitors have to pay them for the privilege of being able to sell their own products. (Sadly, I'm *not* expecting anti-trust consequences for this. Not because it isn't deserved, but because I'm too jaded to think it's actually going to happen.)
Or maybe because it makes very little sense. MS didn't create secure boot, and they don't control it or the licensing for it. They want it turned on for Windows 8 certified machines, with their key loaded in. Another OS source can run their own licensing server if they wanted the cost and responsibility, they can provide their own keys if they want the hassle of giving the users instructions on how to load it manually, or they can just ignore the feature altogether if they're ok with leaving that vulnerability open when people disable the feature (on x86 systems) to install their software. MS doesn't control secure boot licensing. They just added the option to piggyback through them as an inexpensive convenience, which they don't even profit from since the entire $99 goes to Verisign.
Secure boot, which is what you're concerned about, is just a feature in UEFI. Which has been the BIOS replacement for years. It's not new, it's not an MS creation, and it's not limited to secure boot. Saying you won't buy any PC or mobo that has UEFI because of secure boot is like saying you won't buy any with BIOS if it doesn't have overclocking settings.
Replace "UEFI" with "BIOS" in your first sentence and see how it sounds. Because that's what it is. It's not some MS feature or add-on, not some kind of evil conspiracy, it's the new BIOS. And it's not that "new". And part of the Windows 8 certification requirements for x86_64 systems is that the secure boot feature, which also isn't an MS invention, can be disabled. So that address your concern about buying PCs and motherboards that won't let you disable the feature you actually have a problem about.
That's where something like an elliptical/exercise bike dual trainer can come in handy. Now you've got somewhere to stand and walk, sit down and pedal, or just sit down, all without going somewhere.