You can't just push all the responsibility on someone else's shoulders when you're also partially to blame. Use a service like Paypal to do your payments and subscriptions on the Internet and that way your credit card details will only ever be on one, single service's database instead of multiple ones; even though the attackers could possibly have gained the account name of my Paypal account they still don't know the password nor a single number on my card and thus they gained absolutely nothing, atleast as long as you're smart enough to use a completely unique password on your Paypal account that you don't use anywhere else.
No, not much different than using hosts, except it automatically gets you the correct IP address for the site you're trying to access whereas with hosts file you have to get it manually and enter it there, first. Sounds a lot handier that way, but then again, that totally ruins your trolling argument:/
I do agree with that, but as I replied to another person who kept yelling about how the devs should instead use meta or alt as the key in shortcuts instead of control, the point changing things people are used to should be tangible benefits, not just change for change's sake. Change for change's sake may be fun for the developer(s) but ultimately it won't benefit anyone. You know, like changing control to alt provides no actual benefit; it isn't faster, alt key is just as reachable as control and everyone is already used to using it. That said I am too used to the traditional UI paradigms and have trouble looking out of the box in that regards so I can't really say what kind of change would be worth researching and pursuing.
Is your point that they should differentiate just for the sake of differentiating? That's a terribly poor reason for doing that. If using alt instead of control for example did provide some real tangible benefits to it, then yes, it would make sense. But it doesn't: there is absolutely no benefit from just replacing control with alt in keyboard shortcuts, especially since people are already used to using control. It would be counter-intuitive and a disadvantage, not a benefit.
The Right Reason(TM) for doing something differently than what people are used to is because it provides some actual tangible benefit.
It's easy to just say "do something different and better!" when you're not giving a single concretic example yourself. The way Windows and most DEs and WMs work just happens to work reasonably well in conjunction with a mouse and a keyboard whereas for example gestures usually work very poorly with such input devices. There are only a limited number of ways of presenting information or interacting with it, it's not an endless pool from which to just pick what you like, especially because displays themselves are still purely 2D.
So, my question to fellow Slashdotters is 'Do you encrypt your email? If not, 'Why not?' and 'Why has email encryption using PGP or something similar not become more commonplace?' The use of cryptography used to be a hot topic once upon a time.
What benefit does encrypting email provide to me? If the recipient's computer is compromised then the attack likely already knows all the passwords and passcodes and has access to any and all keys anyways, and if the recipient's email password is simple enough to be compromised then likely the recipient is gullible enough to fall for social engineering anyways. In the end the end result is the same either way.
While that may be the how it works right now, I think the discussion is about how it *should* work going forward. Today, privacy is a yes or no question. How hard would it be to have a legal definition for 'relative privacy' ie Just because I do something on a public street shouldn't automatically grant you the right to publish that to a billion people. In the case of TFA, sure I wouldn't expect a Facebook post to be completely private, but there is a huge difference in privacy levels between friends of friends seeing it, or even their friends and friends of friends (or even govt spies or facebook employees), but I should have some expectation that I won't see it on an international network news broadcast.
There are controls on Facebook for if you wish to allow friends of friends to see your stuff or not and as such if you haven't denied them that permission then you can't really expect privacy. If you aren't using the controls that are already there then third parties shouldn't be accountable for your lack of discipline.
Seriously, if it's private, WTF are you posting it to a web service for?
Because some people wish to share stuff with a SELECT GROUP OF PEOPLE. It doesn't mean they want to share the stuff with the whole world. That's why there are privacy controls on these things.
It depends on the implementation. If once you have tagged something private only a select group of people have access to it then it is private, if it however is just a text tag and everyone still has access to it then it is public. Tagging something as private shows very clear intent from the poster and especially if access to it is also restricted then the intent is more than clear enough, atleast here in Finland. I suppose in the rest of the world common sense is extinct or outlawed.
Do you not realize that a VCR or a DVD recorder is a way to pirate?
Not only that: a camera is enough to pirate copyrighted works. Hell, even a god damn pencil and some paper is enough! There doesn't really exist anything at all whatsoever that can't be used for piracy in one way or another and the only way of truly preventing people from pirating is to always have someone stand behind them and watch. And even that would work only if you could always 100% count on that person watching them. As such banning uses based on the argument "it COULD THEORETICALLY be used for piracy!" is just illogical and downright customer-hostile.
What's the advantage of running homebrew on an Android device over running homebrew on a full-blown desktop PC?
There are a few answers and they're all rather simple: it's different hardware, allowing for different things, and if you're buying such a device anyways why not take advantage of it in multiple ways? And unlike a PC and most Android devices, a PSVita is a PSVita: its specs do not change and since you can count on there always being the same set of input devices you can optimize whatever it is you're creating for that.
I may be wrong as I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it that chandrasekhar limit applies only if a black hole is formed through a star collapsing. If a black hole is formed by some other means then its mass could be something entirely different, including the minimum limit for forming one. As wikipedia so helpfully lists there are two known ways for a black hole to form: gravitational collapse and high-energy collisions. There could be some as-of-yet-unknown means, too.
The more precise answer to the OP's question thus would seem to be: the Planck mass
I think you're taking it too literally. I just assumed the judge ordered him to remove the blog on his Blogspot account and it seems that's what he did. I cba to read the actual court files even if I could find them, this is simply not an interesting enough a case for that, so you'll only have to do with how I interpreted the story or disagree with me.
That's the thing: he was directly sending messages to her and her relatives. That is likely the primary reasoning behind the order. (NB. I didn't read the TFA yet.)
That's what I said: "it wouldn't block out other audio sources", allowing you to hear everything around you normally, too. Atleast I could definitely see surgeons and other personnel working on highly risky and/or important stuff benefiting from that. You just read my comment wrong:)
If you have to plug in a cable anyway, why not just use headphones? They're a lot less traumatic
Mostly because it wouldn't block out other audio sources, plus the audio quality would be better. Of course wireless audio would be even better, but if it could be hacked into... well, imagine getting audio ads right into your skull without being able to block it out.
They are at a fixed length from your eye, the distance doesn't vary. Thus to my understanding it should be possible to have the image appear sharp depending on where you look. And if the lenses could detect how close or far you're looking the image could obviously be adjusted accordingly, thereby making them work at any focus range. But as I said, that's how I understand it, I could be wrong, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I'm thinking how nice it would be to return to a time where I could live without this device.
BLASPHEMER! You obviously do not belong on /.!
You can't just push all the responsibility on someone else's shoulders when you're also partially to blame. Use a service like Paypal to do your payments and subscriptions on the Internet and that way your credit card details will only ever be on one, single service's database instead of multiple ones; even though the attackers could possibly have gained the account name of my Paypal account they still don't know the password nor a single number on my card and thus they gained absolutely nothing, atleast as long as you're smart enough to use a completely unique password on your Paypal account that you don't use anywhere else.
No, not much different than using hosts, except it automatically gets you the correct IP address for the site you're trying to access whereas with hosts file you have to get it manually and enter it there, first. Sounds a lot handier that way, but then again, that totally ruins your trolling argument :/
I would like to see some more challenging UIs.
I do agree with that, but as I replied to another person who kept yelling about how the devs should instead use meta or alt as the key in shortcuts instead of control, the point changing things people are used to should be tangible benefits, not just change for change's sake. Change for change's sake may be fun for the developer(s) but ultimately it won't benefit anyone. You know, like changing control to alt provides no actual benefit; it isn't faster, alt key is just as reachable as control and everyone is already used to using it. That said I am too used to the traditional UI paradigms and have trouble looking out of the box in that regards so I can't really say what kind of change would be worth researching and pursuing.
Is your point that they should differentiate just for the sake of differentiating? That's a terribly poor reason for doing that. If using alt instead of control for example did provide some real tangible benefits to it, then yes, it would make sense. But it doesn't: there is absolutely no benefit from just replacing control with alt in keyboard shortcuts, especially since people are already used to using control. It would be counter-intuitive and a disadvantage, not a benefit.
The Right Reason(TM) for doing something differently than what people are used to is because it provides some actual tangible benefit.
It's easy to just say "do something different and better!" when you're not giving a single concretic example yourself. The way Windows and most DEs and WMs work just happens to work reasonably well in conjunction with a mouse and a keyboard whereas for example gestures usually work very poorly with such input devices. There are only a limited number of ways of presenting information or interacting with it, it's not an endless pool from which to just pick what you like, especially because displays themselves are still purely 2D.
I know this is off-topic, but I really can't help but pose you a single question: how old are you?
You can't: there are none in the political field, they're too busy shoving money in their pockets to care.
So, my question to fellow Slashdotters is 'Do you encrypt your email? If not, 'Why not?' and 'Why has email encryption using PGP or something similar not become more commonplace?' The use of cryptography used to be a hot topic once upon a time.
What benefit does encrypting email provide to me? If the recipient's computer is compromised then the attack likely already knows all the passwords and passcodes and has access to any and all keys anyways, and if the recipient's email password is simple enough to be compromised then likely the recipient is gullible enough to fall for social engineering anyways. In the end the end result is the same either way.
While that may be the how it works right now, I think the discussion is about how it *should* work going forward.
Today, privacy is a yes or no question. How hard would it be to have a legal definition for 'relative privacy' ie Just because I do something on a public street shouldn't automatically grant you the right to publish that to a billion people. In the case of TFA, sure I wouldn't expect a Facebook post to be completely private, but there is a huge difference in privacy levels between friends of friends seeing it, or even their friends and friends of friends (or even govt spies or facebook employees), but I should have some expectation that I won't see it on an international network news broadcast.
There are controls on Facebook for if you wish to allow friends of friends to see your stuff or not and as such if you haven't denied them that permission then you can't really expect privacy. If you aren't using the controls that are already there then third parties shouldn't be accountable for your lack of discipline.
ps: You're from Finland? Liar! Everyone knows there are no gays in Finland. ;)
It's not gay if you only mate with polar bears!
Seriously, if it's private, WTF are you posting it to a web service for?
Because some people wish to share stuff with a SELECT GROUP OF PEOPLE. It doesn't mean they want to share the stuff with the whole world. That's why there are privacy controls on these things.
It depends on the implementation. If once you have tagged something private only a select group of people have access to it then it is private, if it however is just a text tag and everyone still has access to it then it is public. Tagging something as private shows very clear intent from the poster and especially if access to it is also restricted then the intent is more than clear enough, atleast here in Finland. I suppose in the rest of the world common sense is extinct or outlawed.
Do you not realize that a VCR or a DVD recorder is a way to pirate?
Not only that: a camera is enough to pirate copyrighted works. Hell, even a god damn pencil and some paper is enough! There doesn't really exist anything at all whatsoever that can't be used for piracy in one way or another and the only way of truly preventing people from pirating is to always have someone stand behind them and watch. And even that would work only if you could always 100% count on that person watching them. As such banning uses based on the argument "it COULD THEORETICALLY be used for piracy!" is just illogical and downright customer-hostile.
What's the advantage of running homebrew on an Android device over running homebrew on a full-blown desktop PC?
There are a few answers and they're all rather simple: it's different hardware, allowing for different things, and if you're buying such a device anyways why not take advantage of it in multiple ways? And unlike a PC and most Android devices, a PSVita is a PSVita: its specs do not change and since you can count on there always being the same set of input devices you can optimize whatever it is you're creating for that.
I may be wrong as I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it that chandrasekhar limit applies only if a black hole is formed through a star collapsing. If a black hole is formed by some other means then its mass could be something entirely different, including the minimum limit for forming one. As wikipedia so helpfully lists there are two known ways for a black hole to form: gravitational collapse and high-energy collisions. There could be some as-of-yet-unknown means, too.
The more precise answer to the OP's question thus would seem to be: the Planck mass
That's what she said.
But are most people really that dumb to not know how to use google or bing to search out easy way around the blocks.
Short answer: yes.
Fallout is still just a game.
I am debating myself whether that's a good thing or not.
I think you're taking it too literally. I just assumed the judge ordered him to remove the blog on his Blogspot account and it seems that's what he did. I cba to read the actual court files even if I could find them, this is simply not an interesting enough a case for that, so you'll only have to do with how I interpreted the story or disagree with me.
and direct communication.
That's the thing: he was directly sending messages to her and her relatives. That is likely the primary reasoning behind the order. (NB. I didn't read the TFA yet.)
That's what I said: "it wouldn't block out other audio sources", allowing you to hear everything around you normally, too. Atleast I could definitely see surgeons and other personnel working on highly risky and/or important stuff benefiting from that. You just read my comment wrong :)
hi-tech human abuse?
I wouldn't call UK police hi-tech humans, though.
If you have to plug in a cable anyway, why not just use headphones? They're a lot less traumatic
Mostly because it wouldn't block out other audio sources, plus the audio quality would be better. Of course wireless audio would be even better, but if it could be hacked into... well, imagine getting audio ads right into your skull without being able to block it out.
They are at a fixed length from your eye, the distance doesn't vary. Thus to my understanding it should be possible to have the image appear sharp depending on where you look. And if the lenses could detect how close or far you're looking the image could obviously be adjusted accordingly, thereby making them work at any focus range. But as I said, that's how I understand it, I could be wrong, too.