Every. Single. View. That she has demonstrated has been contrary to the primary tenants of our country: free speech, peaceful assembly and security of our persons, the right to keep & bear arms, and so on.
Is using English intelligently contrary to the primary tenets of our country too?
Hitler...had only one big ball!
Goering...had two but they were small.
Himmler...had something sim'lar.
And poor Goebbels...had no balls...at all!
(sung to the Colonel Bogey March, naturally)
The Constitution is to protect the people from the government.
The Law is to protect the government from the people.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
--US constitution, article VI, clause 2. When even the Constitution refers to itself as the Law, you can't really argue the two are distinct.
That's no left-leaning watchdog, that's an Obama-leaning watchdog. There's a definite difference - the real left-wingers are generally upset with Kagan's ideas about civil liberties and keeping people prisoner in Gitmo without charges for years on end, among other things.
This is a very important difference. People who think Obama is synonymous with "left-wing" are missing a lot of the picture.
Yep. That must be it. Not knowing everything you know makes a person stupid. Especially in a thread where others are discussing Android being dual-licensed so that parts of it can remain closed. Everyone must either know 100% of the details of that, or be a complete and total idiot.
?????????
What exactly do you think my premise was? I didn't imply that "some" meant "it's not an issue". I implied that "some" meant that a one-size-fits-all approach was not necessarily appropriate or logical. I'm not sure where you learned reading comprehension, but yours is clearly substandard. I suggest you take some remedial English to rectify this issue before you resume posting in forums where your nonsense can endanger others' sanity.
According to the report, the FBI and the INC used the same technology to try to break the password. It is a mechanism called a "dictionary" - a computer system that tests password combinations from known data and police information.
Nobody tell the reporters that when trying encryption, "dictionary" is just a fancy computer word for...an actual dictionary.
Not never. Given enough time and CPU cycles, anything stored locally can be cracked. It's just a matter of how long you want to wait.
Wrong. There is a finite amount of matter and energy (and hence computing power) in the universe. With AES 256 these limits are already very close and possibly exceeded.
You should probably use html tags so it doesn't look like you're arguing with yourself. Unless that's how you want it to look.
The question is, is there a way for paranoid individuals to turn this capability off if they want to.
There shouldn't be, for all the reasons you gave in support of why users really ARE a security threat rather than the ones who should be setting security policy for their phones.
There should be, for the reason that only some users are a security threat (as described in GP, the ones whose PCs are DDOS-bots and such) while others are not (those of us who update regularly and don't run untrusted executable downloads or other shifty things).
Only SOME users? Please define "some" when discussing the Windows world.
I don't have a precise definition, and I don't need one. An undetermined portion of users that is less than the whole. My point still stands just fine.
The Downadup worm infected over 1.1 MILLION Windows PCs in a DAY. As for the Storm botnet crap, Microsoft claimed that 10% of the machines they scanned were infected. That too is not a trivial number or "some" as you define it. Conflicker infected over SEVEN MILLION machines (that we know of).
You realize you're talking about an installed user-base of hundreds of millions, right? So yes, seven million is "some". 1.1 million in a day is "some". 40 or 50 million is "some". I don't care to debate whether the users who are security threats are a majority or a minority, because frankly I don't care. All I'm saying is, no matter how small the group of non-security-threat users is, it contains very nearly 100% of people who both want to and can figure out how to disable unauthorized remote updates, and therefore an opt-out is not a security threat, nor a contradiction.
Throwing big numbers and capitalized words at me isn't going to change that.
... if you decide to give the browser access to your location information. It's actually pretty well done, and hey, it's open-source. If you don't like it, compile a copy yourself without that stuff...
Which will work great...UNTIL they remotely force your phone to download an identical version with all the stuff you took out back in, without your knowledge or consent, like this "feature" allows them to do at will. Isn't that the point of this whole discussion?
The question is, is there a way for paranoid individuals to turn this capability off if they want to.
There shouldn't be, for all the reasons you gave in support of why users really ARE a security threat rather than the ones who should be setting security policy for their phones.
There should be, for the reason that only some users are a security threat (as described in GP, the ones whose PCs are DDOS-bots and such) while others are not (those of us who update regularly and don't run untrusted executable downloads or other shifty things).
If the question is "does Google or the owner know better whether or not something should be installed?" the answer can't be "Google, but they should make a checkbox that says 'lulz just kidding, I'm smarter, turn it off.'" It's not logically consistent.
It's not logically consistent only if you assume all users are identical. isn't it more reasonable to say that Google is better at deciding than those users who never figure out where the check box is or never care enough to check it, and Google is worse at deciding than the people who both know enough and care about security enough to go looking for the opt-out?
Any moment now, people will start saying that Google is the New Apple, which is the New Microsoft, which is the New...what? Commodore?
IBM, grasshopper, Microsoft used to be the new IBM. Learn your history!
Microsoft was never the new anything. They basically invented the business model of selling software to hardware vendors, so anyone that replaces them in that capacity is the new Microsoft, but they are the original. This was never IBM's market.
It's the only *true* open source system out there that's open enough that the Many Eyeballs principle can be applied to, and that is open enough that we'll eventually see custom distros of the OS emerging.
Although I get your point, I'd say the Many Eyeballs principle is working with Android, given that this article exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Every. Single. View. That she has demonstrated has been contrary to the primary tenants of our country: free speech, peaceful assembly and security of our persons, the right to keep & bear arms, and so on.
Is using English intelligently contrary to the primary tenets of our country too?
Hitler...had only one big ball!
Goering...had two but they were small.
Himmler...had something sim'lar.
And poor Goebbels...had no balls...at all!
(sung to the Colonel Bogey March, naturally)
I guess my Nazi porn collection is completely unacceptable then?
Michelle Bombshell? Is that you?
supposed to start to day
I wonder when Slashdot will be burned down to the ground by English teachers.
Never, because cyberspace transcends the brick-and-mortar world where things are burned to the ground. Unfortunately, in this case.
They left out the comma, I think she means ""those of us who favor some form of pornography, and hate speech regulation"
Would that it were so...
No, that is wrong.
The Constitution is to protect the people from the government.
The Law is to protect the government from the people.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
--US constitution, article VI, clause 2. When even the Constitution refers to itself as the Law, you can't really argue the two are distinct.
That's no left-leaning watchdog, that's an Obama-leaning watchdog. There's a definite difference - the real left-wingers are generally upset with Kagan's ideas about civil liberties and keeping people prisoner in Gitmo without charges for years on end, among other things.
This is a very important difference. People who think Obama is synonymous with "left-wing" are missing a lot of the picture.
* YMMV. This post is not intended to ignite the flamefest known as the vi-emacs schism.
Which is small comfort, as I think you and I both know the road to schismatic flamefests is paved with good intentions.
You forgot your trailing slash. And you want us to think you actually use sed. Come on.
not kahn.
Somehow, they managed to spell it right in the link url but wrong in the text, every single time. Amazing.
Khan = Muslim
Or a genetically-engineered Indian.
Or a Genghis.
Oh, so you're just stupid.
Yep. That must be it. Not knowing everything you know makes a person stupid. Especially in a thread where others are discussing Android being dual-licensed so that parts of it can remain closed. Everyone must either know 100% of the details of that, or be a complete and total idiot.
Each of these has different costs when breached.
Not to mention, different countermeasures.
?????????
What exactly do you think my premise was? I didn't imply that "some" meant "it's not an issue". I implied that "some" meant that a one-size-fits-all approach was not necessarily appropriate or logical. I'm not sure where you learned reading comprehension, but yours is clearly substandard. I suggest you take some remedial English to rectify this issue before you resume posting in forums where your nonsense can endanger others' sanity.
According to the report, the FBI and the INC used the same technology to try to break the password. It is a mechanism called a "dictionary" - a computer system that tests password combinations from known data and police information.
Nobody tell the reporters that when trying encryption, "dictionary" is just a fancy computer word for...an actual dictionary.
Not never. Given enough time and CPU cycles, anything stored locally can be cracked. It's just a matter of how long you want to wait.
Wrong. There is a finite amount of matter and energy (and hence computing power) in the universe. With AES 256 these limits are already very close and possibly exceeded.
You should probably use html tags so it doesn't look like you're arguing with yourself. Unless that's how you want it to look.
This is mainly the federal government that does this, state governments almost never do this.
That you know of...
...if you remove the remote force install function, how exactly will they accomplish that?
You presumably can't. You just said the browser was open source and you could compile your own. You said nothing about the rest of the OS.
The question is, is there a way for paranoid individuals to turn this capability off if they want to.
There shouldn't be, for all the reasons you gave in support of why users really ARE a security threat rather than the ones who should be setting security policy for their phones.
There should be, for the reason that only some users are a security threat (as described in GP, the ones whose PCs are DDOS-bots and such) while others are not (those of us who update regularly and don't run untrusted executable downloads or other shifty things).
Only SOME users? Please define "some" when discussing the Windows world.
I don't have a precise definition, and I don't need one. An undetermined portion of users that is less than the whole. My point still stands just fine.
The Downadup worm infected over 1.1 MILLION Windows PCs in a DAY. As for the Storm botnet crap, Microsoft claimed that 10% of the machines they scanned were infected. That too is not a trivial number or "some" as you define it. Conflicker infected over SEVEN MILLION machines (that we know of).
You realize you're talking about an installed user-base of hundreds of millions, right? So yes, seven million is "some". 1.1 million in a day is "some". 40 or 50 million is "some". I don't care to debate whether the users who are security threats are a majority or a minority, because frankly I don't care. All I'm saying is, no matter how small the group of non-security-threat users is, it contains very nearly 100% of people who both want to and can figure out how to disable unauthorized remote updates, and therefore an opt-out is not a security threat, nor a contradiction. Throwing big numbers and capitalized words at me isn't going to change that.
I'm not trying to troll, but really; if you compare the two platforms one is mostly...
I'm not trying to troll, but really: "I don't want to sound like a queer or nothin', but I'd kinda like to make love to you tonight."
... if you decide to give the browser access to your location information. It's actually pretty well done, and hey, it's open-source. If you don't like it, compile a copy yourself without that stuff...
Which will work great...UNTIL they remotely force your phone to download an identical version with all the stuff you took out back in, without your knowledge or consent, like this "feature" allows them to do at will. Isn't that the point of this whole discussion?
The question is, is there a way for paranoid individuals to turn this capability off if they want to.
There shouldn't be, for all the reasons you gave in support of why users really ARE a security threat rather than the ones who should be setting security policy for their phones.
There should be, for the reason that only some users are a security threat (as described in GP, the ones whose PCs are DDOS-bots and such) while others are not (those of us who update regularly and don't run untrusted executable downloads or other shifty things).
If the question is "does Google or the owner know better whether or not something should be installed?" the answer can't be "Google, but they should make a checkbox that says 'lulz just kidding, I'm smarter, turn it off.'" It's not logically consistent.
It's not logically consistent only if you assume all users are identical. isn't it more reasonable to say that Google is better at deciding than those users who never figure out where the check box is or never care enough to check it, and Google is worse at deciding than the people who both know enough and care about security enough to go looking for the opt-out?
Any moment now, people will start saying that Google is the New Apple, which is the New Microsoft, which is the New...what? Commodore?
IBM, grasshopper, Microsoft used to be the new IBM. Learn your history!
Microsoft was never the new anything. They basically invented the business model of selling software to hardware vendors, so anyone that replaces them in that capacity is the new Microsoft, but they are the original. This was never IBM's market.
"Apple Hides Secret Rootkit Installer on iPhone 4" There, now it's news.
"Gizmodo Informant Arrested for Exposing Secret Apple Rootkit" will be the news two days later.
It's the only *true* open source system out there that's open enough that the Many Eyeballs principle can be applied to, and that is open enough that we'll eventually see custom distros of the OS emerging.
Although I get your point, I'd say the Many Eyeballs principle is working with Android, given that this article exists.