Recording data that was broadcast in the clear? How dare they! Next you'll be telling me that they're taking pictures of things that can be seen from the street. Scoundrels!
Whenever a person's ego or sense of pride is at stake, they're going to rationalize, minimize, lie, etc.
But the police department's ego or reputation wasn't at stake. The PD recommended devices that were claimed to be fit for use by the manufacturer. If that claim is wrong, that's not the police department fault, and even the harshest critics of the police (including me) would forgive that. That is, until they ignore or cover up the fact that the manufacturer mislead them.
When I'm doing something for work, and a vendor gives me the wrong product, or a malfunctioning product, I sure as hell blame the vendor. Why would I cover up for a vendor? Why would the police department cover up for a vendor? Makes no sense at all.
Is this where we say "correlation is not causation"? I'd imagine that people who live in areas where they're likely to get shot are more likely to buy guns for self defense.
There's nothing subjective about the illegal confiscation of this mans camera. The theft of the equipment was illegal whether or not there was any police brutality. The officer in question is undeniably a criminal.
Why not? Reimaging the disk should write to every bit on the disk, right? That's sufficient to prevent recovery by any known means.
That is, unless "reimaging" has been changed to mean "create a new partition over the old one and recursively copy the appropriate directory structure and files to it". But that would be a misnomer. If it's not bit for bit identical, it's not a disk image.
Also, moving workstations from desk to desk as part of "regular computer maintenance" will flush out the remaining laggards (that was one the best things I've ever seen a CIO think up.)
As long as you manage to move any customizations the user has made to increase his productivity.
Congratulations. You're a fascist. American citizens absolutely have the right to hold police accountable when they cross the line. Suggesting otherwise is reprehensible.
Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from doing anything, and you do not need to interact with microsoft at all to install other OSes.
Microsoft doesn't have to prevent anyone from anything in order for their behavior to be anti-competetive. Microsoft never prevented anyone from using any browser they wanted, and it was still found that preloading IE gave them an unfair advantage. Similarly, preloading Microsoft's key onto every motherboard gives them another unfair advantage.
Previous trojans on the Mac haven't been able to get access to the system without asking permission. If this one really does do that, then there's a genuine security problem
It doesn't. It just does whatever it can do if it has user privileges. If it has admin access, it will use that. It refrains from asking for admin privileges if it doesn't have them. That's all.
Gatekeeper only applies to items downloaded via a browser.
Which I suppose means it requires browser support? E.g. the X11 version of Firefox would probably not set the appropriate flags on things it downloads.
Don't be pedantic and claim that it doesn't get PC viruses because PC refers to windows viruses, that's a specious argument and it's a deliberate ploy to claim Macs don't get viruses
Pedantic, but also correct. And you're right, it is a deliberate ploy to mislead the customer. But isn't that what all marketing is?
Gatekeeper is a new Mountain Lion feature that, by default, prevents any apps that are not from the Mac App Store and are not otherwise signed with an Apple-provided certificate from executing.
Slashdot Mirror
Recording data that was broadcast in the clear? How dare they! Next you'll be telling me that they're taking pictures of things that can be seen from the street. Scoundrels!
Whenever a person's ego or sense of pride is at stake, they're going to rationalize, minimize, lie, etc.
But the police department's ego or reputation wasn't at stake. The PD recommended devices that were claimed to be fit for use by the manufacturer. If that claim is wrong, that's not the police department fault, and even the harshest critics of the police (including me) would forgive that. That is, until they ignore or cover up the fact that the manufacturer mislead them.
When I'm doing something for work, and a vendor gives me the wrong product, or a malfunctioning product, I sure as hell blame the vendor. Why would I cover up for a vendor? Why would the police department cover up for a vendor? Makes no sense at all.
Is this where we say "correlation is not causation"? I'd imagine that people who live in areas where they're likely to get shot are more likely to buy guns for self defense.
On the other hand, there's this.
There's nothing subjective about the illegal confiscation of this mans camera. The theft of the equipment was illegal whether or not there was any police brutality. The officer in question is undeniably a criminal.
My point is that under the letter of the law
Our point is that police are above the law.
Most people aren't interested in challenging police authority either. For those who are, there's a solution.
Because law enforcement is scum. Next question?
What about a dog with bees in its mouth and when it barks it shoots bees at you?
Forget warranties. This crosses the line into criminal negligence.
Why not? Reimaging the disk should write to every bit on the disk, right? That's sufficient to prevent recovery by any known means.
That is, unless "reimaging" has been changed to mean "create a new partition over the old one and recursively copy the appropriate directory structure and files to it". But that would be a misnomer. If it's not bit for bit identical, it's not a disk image.
Also, moving workstations from desk to desk as part of "regular computer maintenance" will flush out the remaining laggards (that was one the best things I've ever seen a CIO think up.)
As long as you manage to move any customizations the user has made to increase his productivity.
Congratulations. You're a fascist. American citizens absolutely have the right to hold police accountable when they cross the line. Suggesting otherwise is reprehensible.
That would be justice, if our system were just enough to let it prevail.
If you have difficulty telling the products apart after covering up the brand logos, then they are too similar. It's that simple.
Try doing that with beige box PCs from the 90s. Hell, I can barely tell my GF's toyota corolla from the neighbors honda civic.
Chiefs don't make laws.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
They sound like awful people. Why do you want to do this?
Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from doing anything, and you do not need to interact with microsoft at all to install other OSes.
Microsoft doesn't have to prevent anyone from anything in order for their behavior to be anti-competetive. Microsoft never prevented anyone from using any browser they wanted, and it was still found that preloading IE gave them an unfair advantage. Similarly, preloading Microsoft's key onto every motherboard gives them another unfair advantage.
Previous trojans on the Mac haven't been able to get access to the system without asking permission. If this one really does do that, then there's a genuine security problem
It doesn't. It just does whatever it can do if it has user privileges. If it has admin access, it will use that. It refrains from asking for admin privileges if it doesn't have them. That's all.
Especially since I can't rightly say I have a better plan and neither does Mr. deRaadt.
The better plan is to sue Microsoft for abuse of their monopoly.
Gatekeeper only applies to items downloaded via a browser.
Which I suppose means it requires browser support? E.g. the X11 version of Firefox would probably not set the appropriate flags on things it downloads.
No, even the Gilded Age was full of "crony capitalism", contrary to what Libertarians say
Of course it was. That's how laissez faire capitalism always ends up.
That's just begging for "your mom" jokes.
Don't be pedantic and claim that it doesn't get PC viruses because PC refers to windows viruses, that's a specious argument and it's a deliberate ploy to claim Macs don't get viruses
Pedantic, but also correct. And you're right, it is a deliberate ploy to mislead the customer. But isn't that what all marketing is?
Gatekeeper is a new Mountain Lion feature that, by default, prevents any apps that are not from the Mac App Store and are not otherwise signed with an Apple-provided certificate from executing.
How is Fink going to deal with that?