But it's a separate problem from giving consumers a kill-switch on their phone in case it gets stolen.
I think your problem is in assuming that the consumer will have any access to the kill-switch at all. Likely, we won't, and if we do, it will be via an intermediary at the carrier. Which, as anyone who deals with these telcos every day can tell you, means the same thing as not having access.
Of course that fear doesn't apply in the U.S. No one but the deeply paranoid wingnuts and the foolish cult of Greenwald dudebros are afraid of the "state" turning off their phone.
The IRS didn't just investigate the teabaggers, they investigated political groups on the right and the left, it was just the mentally-ill right-wingers with their persecution complexes (we're not persecuting them, we're making fun of them and their superstitious, backward, bigoted beliefs) that went nuts over it.
So much for free market economics and competition.
Meh.
I've always believed the black market to be the only true "free" market, anyway.
Criminalizing booze and drugs never slowed down usage, all it did was eliminate the need to follow regulation, and kept/keeps the government from getting a cut of the action.
...and then? Will Filezilla run on startup, settle itself inconspicuously in the systray without a running window you could accidentally close, connect to the SFTP server, download files automatically to local directories so they're instantly accessible, then monitor, sync and notify you of any changes? Will it allow you to dish out invitations to share directories and files direct from your desktop, and manage those permissions for an unlimited number of users and directories?
You can do that with rsync and I have seen plenty of SFTP and FTP clients which can manage to do the same less efficiently as well.
Permission schemes... You would think you could do that with UNIX and separate login accounts no?
Is it easy for a 'non-techie' to set up and use such a system? No; now you see the niche that companies like Dropbox seek to fill.
Come up with a secure, self-hosted system with one-click setup and simple configuration, and you might actually give them a run for their money.
By your reasoning, anyone who refused to tell the Nazis where any Jews were hiding was practicing censorship.
I always love it when someone who isn't me tries to tell me what my reasoning is.
Even better, you're equating China's censorship with protecting Jews during WWII. Not to mention the fact that you've completely missed my point: Legal precedent set in a US court is used in future US court decisions, regardless of whether or not one of the named entities in the original case are foreign. Thus, if a US court rules "Censorship is free speech" in any way, this decision can and likely will be used to determine future cases.
Side note: how on Earth did you manage to fit so many logical fallacies into one sentence? That's impressive.
A few weeks ago I was talking to a high school age son of a friend. The kid studies music in school but still had no idea who Bob Dylan was. This isn't quite that bad but it's close.
Except I'm not a fucking programmer, and especially not a game programmer.
I'd even go so far to bet that a lot of Slashdot regulars were asking themselves the same question I did: who the hell is this guy, and what makes him "legend?" Valid questions, as the submitter didn't bother to explain nor provide any sort of link that would give readers the opportunity to find out.
Now, if you were to ask me "who is Harley Earl," yea, I'd be pretty embarrassed if I couldn't answer. And, of course, I'd forgive anyone who isn't into automotive design by trade or hobby for not knowing.
He's well known if you're into the low-level machinery of game graphics.
I presume, then, that the submitter's error was in assuming every person reading Slashdot is "into" game graphics enough to know who the "legends" are.
Today's 18-year old shiftless potheads have no idea who made what they take for granted.
All great advances are built upon other people's work, and the dope-addled idiots like "CanHasDIY" can only think far enough to make it into a topical joke.
No, please, tell us what you really think, Captain Assumption.
FWIW, we've all heard the "standing on the shoulders of giants" meme, but not all of us consider video game technology as the be-all-end-all of human accomplishment. Twat.
So what? Are they going to start replacing the sensationalized drivel, designed to keep us divided against each other, with factual stories or something?
As a person who typically avoids the "Top news organizations," I have a really, really hard time A) understanding what the problem is, and B) caring.
That is the poster's words, distorting (IMO) the courts ruling. The court said that Baidu's actions are allowed by Free Speech.
Right, but said actions are blocking access to information, which is the definition of censorship.
And that censorship occurs only in China.
So... US court rulings that involve foreign entities do not count as legal precedent, and the decision cannot be used in determining other cases that do not involve foreign entities? I have a hard time believing that.
Why? The constitution only regulates the US government. It doesn't regulate neither the Chinese government nor private entities inside or outside the US.
True, but I still think "US court determines censorship to be free speech" is a terrifying precedent to set, don't you?
In addition to all of those fine points, many of us here are well aware of how loosely defined 'hacker' and 'cyber terrorist' is likely to be (and is already).
Indeed; my first thought upon reading the summary was, "Oh, you mean 'cyber-terrorists' like Aaron Schwartz and Weev?"
They have no intention of stopping real terrorism, because real terrorism is a weapon in their toolkit against the rights of the common man. Since incarceration is now a for-profit business, I have no compunction about pointing out the easing of warrant requirements is just another way for the corporate-owned prison system to maintain profitability.
These changes seem reasonable to me. They are getting a warrant with judicial oversight. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
No, this is how it's supposed to work:
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.
Mind you, per the Constitution nothing can supersede this rule, outside a legally ratified Constitutional Amendment.
If they have probable cause, then there is no reason that I can see for the warrant to specifically tie the search to a geographical location, or to require separate warrants for each machine.
Really? What part of "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" is unclear?
Car analogy: Should a search warrant for a vehicle specify that it can only be searched at the suspect's home, but not at his place of work? Should separate warrants be required for the glove compartment and trunk?
Separate warrants are required for locked compartments.
>I think the general idea, at least in terms of this discussion, is that someone who can remotely access your stove via exploits can also probably bypass any safety mechanism that would prevent the stove from overheating.
That weird assumption would seem to make the discussion pointless. There would be no reason to connect the safety functionality to the remote start functionality. If you build an over that poorly, you'd be sued out of existence the first time the shoddy design was exploited.
And yet, we've seen evidence that automotive manufacturers have done just that - connected critical systema to non-critical ones, in a way so that compromise of one system equates to compromise of both - accessing the seat heaters through a CANbus tap also gives access to the brake and steering systems. I'd link to the recent demonstration of this particular hack, but A) pretty sure we all know about it by now, and B) inserting html is a bitch-and-a-half on this damn tablet.
Anyway, while I may agree with the concept of total product liability, it unfortunately does not reflect reality.
If your oven catches fire because it was turned on too long, you have a defective oven.
I think the general idea, at least in terms of this discussion, is that someone who can remotely access your stove via exploits can also probably bypass any safety mechanism that would prevent the stove from overheating.
Unlike the 1980's era Lady Kenmore I had when I first bought my house, that was happy to catch fire without the need for external stimuli.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's a separate problem from giving consumers a kill-switch on their phone in case it gets stolen.
I think your problem is in assuming that the consumer will have any access to the kill-switch at all. Likely, we won't, and if we do, it will be via an intermediary at the carrier. Which, as anyone who deals with these telcos every day can tell you, means the same thing as not having access.
Well, the "saving Americans $2.6 billion" part is unlikely to work, in any case - it'll just go towards increased profits for the insurance companies.
Exactly.
When's the last time some rent-seeker has ever dropped the price of something?
To that end, I remember a time, prior to 2007, when you could buy stuff without paying a "fuel surcharge."
Of course that fear doesn't apply in the U.S. No one but the deeply paranoid wingnuts and the foolish cult of Greenwald dudebros are afraid of the "state" turning off their phone.
The IRS didn't just investigate the teabaggers, they investigated political groups on the right and the left, it was just the mentally-ill right-wingers with their persecution complexes (we're not persecuting them, we're making fun of them and their superstitious, backward, bigoted beliefs) that went nuts over it.
Well, that and the fact that the IRS did fast track the application for Obama's brother, who ran an illegitimate "charity" out of Kenya.
Gotta learn to read between the lines.
So much for free market economics and competition.
Meh.
I've always believed the black market to be the only true "free" market, anyway.
Criminalizing booze and drugs never slowed down usage, all it did was eliminate the need to follow regulation, and kept/keeps the government from getting a cut of the action.
hence the "scare" quotes.
You can do that with rsync and I have seen plenty of SFTP and FTP clients which can manage to do the same less efficiently as well.
Permission schemes... You would think you could do that with UNIX and separate login accounts no?
Is it easy for a 'non-techie' to set up and use such a system? No; now you see the niche that companies like Dropbox seek to fill.
Come up with a secure, self-hosted system with one-click setup and simple configuration, and you might actually give them a run for their money.
Incorrect
Incorrect correction, jackass.
Try reading the article you link to before hitting "Post" next time, me.
Incorrect
By your reasoning, anyone who refused to tell the Nazis where any Jews were hiding was practicing censorship.
I always love it when someone who isn't me tries to tell me what my reasoning is.
Even better, you're equating China's censorship with protecting Jews during WWII. Not to mention the fact that you've completely missed my point: Legal precedent set in a US court is used in future US court decisions, regardless of whether or not one of the named entities in the original case are foreign. Thus, if a US court rules "Censorship is free speech" in any way, this decision can and likely will be used to determine future cases.
Side note: how on Earth did you manage to fit so many logical fallacies into one sentence? That's impressive.
Just remember - you need both a left wing and a right wing to make the turkey fly.
Ha; best summation of American politics.
Ever.
Of all time.
A few weeks ago I was talking to a high school age son of a friend. The kid studies music in school but still had no idea who Bob Dylan was.
This isn't quite that bad but it's close.
Except I'm not a fucking programmer, and especially not a game programmer.
I'd even go so far to bet that a lot of Slashdot regulars were asking themselves the same question I did: who the hell is this guy, and what makes him "legend?" Valid questions, as the submitter didn't bother to explain nor provide any sort of link that would give readers the opportunity to find out.
Now, if you were to ask me "who is Harley Earl," yea, I'd be pretty embarrassed if I couldn't answer. And, of course, I'd forgive anyone who isn't into automotive design by trade or hobby for not knowing.
Turn in your geek card.
In addition to what other people have already said, his columns on graphics in the old dead-tree version of DDJ were a must-read.
For people into that sort of thing.
Which is but a select subset of a subset of the Slashdot crowd.
Get over yourself... "turn in your geek card" indeed...
He's well known if you're into the low-level machinery of game graphics.
I presume, then, that the submitter's error was in assuming every person reading Slashdot is "into" game graphics enough to know who the "legends" are.
Today's 18-year old shiftless potheads have no idea who made what they take for granted.
All great advances are built upon other people's work, and the dope-addled idiots like "CanHasDIY" can only think far enough to make it into a topical joke.
No, please, tell us what you really think, Captain Assumption.
FWIW, we've all heard the "standing on the shoulders of giants" meme, but not all of us consider video game technology as the be-all-end-all of human accomplishment. Twat.
Programming legend Michael Abrash...
Who?
Dropping into pedantry is the very best way to show that you have no real substance to your position.
Says the person whose post contains no substance, just an ad hominem.
Yeah, the rightwing party proposes a fascist law, damn, that's shocking, must be media bias!
It is, because it ignores the fact that members of the "leftwing party" also propose (and vote for) fascist laws all.
The.
Time.
Intellectual dishonesty at best, outright propaganda at worst.
So what? Are they going to start replacing the sensationalized drivel, designed to keep us divided against each other, with factual stories or something?
As a person who typically avoids the "Top news organizations," I have a really, really hard time A) understanding what the problem is, and B) caring.
That is the poster's words, distorting (IMO) the courts ruling. The court said that Baidu's actions are allowed by Free Speech.
Right, but said actions are blocking access to information, which is the definition of censorship.
And that censorship occurs only in China.
So... US court rulings that involve foreign entities do not count as legal precedent, and the decision cannot be used in determining other cases that do not involve foreign entities? I have a hard time believing that.
We're here dealing in the realm of engineering + political risk = decisions.
There is a risk, but you can't say it was an engineering risk and just a political one.
Welcome to the world of automotive manufacturing.
Why? The constitution only regulates the US government. It doesn't regulate neither the Chinese government nor private entities inside or outside the US.
True, but I still think "US court determines censorship to be free speech" is a terrifying precedent to set, don't you?
In addition to all of those fine points, many of us here are well aware of how loosely defined 'hacker' and 'cyber terrorist' is likely to be (and is already).
Indeed; my first thought upon reading the summary was, "Oh, you mean 'cyber-terrorists' like Aaron Schwartz and Weev?"
They have no intention of stopping real terrorism, because real terrorism is a weapon in their toolkit against the rights of the common man. Since incarceration is now a for-profit business, I have no compunction about pointing out the easing of warrant requirements is just another way for the corporate-owned prison system to maintain profitability.
These changes seem reasonable to me. They are getting a warrant with judicial oversight. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
No, this is how it's supposed to work:
Mind you, per the Constitution nothing can supersede this rule, outside a legally ratified Constitutional Amendment.
If they have probable cause, then there is no reason that I can see for the warrant to specifically tie the search to a geographical location, or to require separate warrants for each machine.
Really? What part of "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" is unclear?
Car analogy: Should a search warrant for a vehicle specify that it can only be searched at the suspect's home, but not at his place of work? Should separate warrants be required for the glove compartment and trunk?
Separate warrants are required for locked compartments.
So yes to the second question.
>I think the general idea, at least in terms of this discussion, is that someone who can remotely access your stove via exploits can also probably bypass any safety mechanism that would prevent the stove from overheating.
That weird assumption would seem to make the discussion pointless. There would be no reason to connect the safety functionality to the remote start functionality. If you build an over that poorly, you'd be sued out of existence the first time the shoddy design was exploited.
And yet, we've seen evidence that automotive manufacturers have done just that - connected critical systema to non-critical ones, in a way so that compromise of one system equates to compromise of both - accessing the seat heaters through a CANbus tap also gives access to the brake and steering systems. I'd link to the recent demonstration of this particular hack, but A) pretty sure we all know about it by now, and B) inserting html is a bitch-and-a-half on this damn tablet.
Anyway, while I may agree with the concept of total product liability, it unfortunately does not reflect reality.
If your oven catches fire because it was turned on too long, you have a defective oven.
I think the general idea, at least in terms of this discussion, is that someone who can remotely access your stove via exploits can also probably bypass any safety mechanism that would prevent the stove from overheating.
Unlike the 1980's era Lady Kenmore I had when I first bought my house, that was happy to catch fire without the need for external stimuli.