The OP wasn't criticizing the average user, he was criticizing a supposedly professional softer reviewer.
If a movie critic said something like "OMG I love Twilight soooo much because Edward is so cute!!!" how would you react to that?
I don't know about you but I expect someone reviewing software to be knowledgeable about software and able to write their review in such a way as to give accurate information to people who aren't as knowledgeable.
In this case what the reviewer wrote was wrong. Someone technical would know that Adobe was too lazy to create a proper.deb package for 64-bit Ubuntu. I've had issues install Acrobat in windows before, does that mean Windows sucks? Nope it just means Adobe sucks.
When I pay good money for software, shouldn't I have higher expectations? I paid MS to sort out the driver issues and they didn't do it.
The driver previously worked under windows, and now it does not.
And Linux developers basically have to reverse engineer every driver, because linux drivers have to be open source and so the kernel developers can't sign the NDAs required to get access to the hardware specs.
MS has a cozy relationship with hardware manufacturers, lots of money, a driver that works on a previous version of windows, and is able to sign NDAs. Really they can't make excuses.
Yup thats the reason right there. A lot of it comes down to cost. If a foreigner makes a threatening remark towards the president then they have one of two options:
1. Start an investigation to determine if he is serious and/or if he has the means to act on his threats. Put a flag in the Homeland security database so that if he tries to enter the US they would monitor his movements and who is is meeting with, etc.
2. Just ban him from entering the US.
I'm sure they have a huge list of procedures to follow. You email the president and tell him he's a prick, they probably query a database to see if you're already on file, and if that file indicates you're dangerous, then follow it up. If not its fine. You make a threat, that will be followed up, regardless of whether or not you're on file. If you're overseas that means you immediately get banned, and get a visit from the local police. Depending on what the police report back they may investigate further, or just drop it.
How do you tell from an email if someone is just drunk and stupid or is a deranged madman that is an actual threat? You ban a drunk asshole, who cares? but if you don't ban a deranged madman and something really bad happens...
No story here, just the secret service following procedure.
Well the thing about the Mexicans is that the government could put a stop to illegal immigration by just checking in on businesses and making sure all their employees are citizens or legal immigrants. This wouldn't be all that difficult to do really, since they already check to make sure people are paying taxes. They just need to cross reference the IRS database with the state's birth certificate databases and INS databases, And you'd have a big long list of people to deport.
Why don't they do this? because it would disrupt a lot of businesses.
So now we have a bunch of people who are technically illegal, but de facto legal (because the government will not take action). They are in the country and government and business have decided to allow them to stay in the country. If the powerful have decided to allow Mexicans to remain in the country should they not have the rights that everyone else in the country have?
yup, and also these scammers needed to sell fast, so they likely sold his house for a much lower price than what its worth. So the buyers get a really sweet deal for a house out of it. The bankers make money. The only one that gets screwed is the victim of the fraud.
Giving the guy his house back and refunding the buyers, would inconvenience the buyer and the bank. But this would be a good thing, I'd think. Then the bank and the buyer would be extra careful to check to make sure this isn't fraud.
But I guess the government doesn't want to interfere with the banks unless its to throw a bunch of money at them.
If he was really mature he'd step aside and keep wikileaks out of this whole thing. What is more important to Julian Assange? Wikileaks or Julian Assange?
This is why they want him to step aside. If Assange truly is this hero fight to cast light on a dark world he would step aside and allow wikileaks to go on without him.
Assange is hiding behind wikileaks hoping his association with the organisation will help his case. Just an asshole using wikileaks as his presonal army to cover up his asshole behaviour towards women.
He could do the honourable thing and step down, but instead he's going to take wikileaks down with him.
the problem with mercenaries is that for a little bit of money they can turn against you.
pay two girls $500 to lay charges on someone, and someone else could pay them $1000 to give up the whole story on how the CIA bribed them.
And what if the Icelandic politician goes to the press? She's already heavily involved with wikileaks so she obviously doesn't have a problem with publishing sensitive information about US black ops. So the CIA is gonna make some threats against her which would be a bigger story than anything else wikileaks has ever published?
So you're basically saying the CIA could easily do something that is highly likely to backfire on them? They're stupid, but not that stupid.
As Rommel once said, in war you take risks but you never gamble. If the CIA were behind this it would be a massive gamble. They would have a hell of a lot more to lose than gain, and its much more likely they would lose than win.
In the course of writing this, the rebuttals came so easily, that I really must casually wonder: Are you wearing a tinfoil hat right now?
You might find it interesting that in the same time period, Canada had a similar plan to make a surprise attack on the US, destroying important infrastructure before the US could react.
this is the problem... you have to label everyone to determine whether you agree or disagree. OMG he's a socialist! I hate him so much!
How about this: we look at each issue independently and and decide for ourselves what we want. Instead of saying "I'm with the tea party therefore I'm against gun control, I want lower taxes and stronger border control and no more mosques in America!" You decide for yourself your own opinion on each issue.
That is why most Americans are cowards. They are too afraid to think for themselves. They decide which group they're in and delegate all thought and decision making to others in that group.
Me? I think we should protect the environment, we should build more nuclear power plants to reduce global warming, people should be allowed to have guns (as long as they aren't insane), I'm for a strong free market, we should discourage government services being provided on a federal level except only where necessary, I think we should be more welcoming to immigrants, and there should be religious freedom for all.
I'm not a socialist, liberal, conservative, teabagger or whatever other label you can think up.
sure I don't know much about Tor. What you haven't answered is how can someone administering a Tor node prevent others from using it to attack other systems?
KeePass is a pretty good solution. it saves all your passwords into an encrypted file. All you have to remember is the password to get into KeePass and you have access to all your passwords. Most of the tim you can just click on the username field on the webpage, click on the sitename in KeePass, hit ctrl-v and it'll enter your username and password and submit it.
So you can have all your passwords for every site be a unique password of random characters, but have to only remember one password. Works for Windows, MacOS, Linux, and has a standalone version you can put on a thumbdrive if you need to use a computer at an internet cafe or whatever.
A simple keylogger won't get your passwords, they'd have to keep track of copy and paste operations to get your passwords.
this is why Tor is pointless. Oh sure you can ban one IP. But if someone set up a botnet to make attacks through Tor? And who are you banning, the originator of the attack or the node that passed it along to you? If you can track down the originator of the attack, can't you also track down people who are criticizing totalitarian governments?
And who maintains the blacklists? Could the government of say, Iran get every IP within Iran put on the blacklist, making Tor unavailable to everyone in the country?
Perhaps you should be limiting what people can do through Tor, ie. just http or https through port 80 only. That way you aren't going to be aiding the black hats and getting your internet connection turned off.
only in areas where they are trying to expand their business into. ie. if you search for social networking and the result is only pages that talk about google buzz, thats a problem. If you search for smart phone and you only see pages talking about android, thats a problem.
But that doesn't mean they have to return a page full of link farms, just because those sites used a lot of SEO tricks to make their pages seem relevant. Yes the link farms can complain that Google is costing them money (which they are), but Google's job is to return relevant results, not give page views to the scum of the internet.
The sad thing is the link farms may have a case. Google makes money through ad revenue, and the link farms make ad revenue. So it could be argued that Google is modifying search results to deny others ad revenue, keeping it for themselves. Its a pretty grey area. It all comes down to the whims of a judge
Its really dirty pool. Google prunes the link farms from search results to improve its product. MS funds the link farms' lawsuits against google. There are a lot of link farms so sooner or later they'll find a clueless judge and one of them is going to win. Which means Google will have to show that link farm in their results.
So basically MS is abusing the legal system to sabotage Google's product.
Google could do the same thing against Bing... but then that would go against their "do no evil" philosophy.
in the US maybe, but in countries where there is healthcare, the company doesn't pay for health insurance for its employees, so the expense of an employee is mostly just the employees incomes. In less litigious countries that gap shrinks even further.
Also it doesn't make sense to spend millions on infrastructure when it will be destroyed in the next civil war... which will be next year.
Maybe we shouldn't be supplying warlords with weapons and ammunition... Oh we can't do that because then Communists/Islamists/Eurasia/Eastasia might take over the country!
Slashdot Mirror
The OP wasn't criticizing the average user, he was criticizing a supposedly professional softer reviewer.
If a movie critic said something like "OMG I love Twilight soooo much because Edward is so cute!!!" how would you react to that?
I don't know about you but I expect someone reviewing software to be knowledgeable about software and able to write their review in such a way as to give accurate information to people who aren't as knowledgeable.
In this case what the reviewer wrote was wrong. Someone technical would know that Adobe was too lazy to create a proper .deb package for 64-bit Ubuntu. I've had issues install Acrobat in windows before, does that mean Windows sucks? Nope it just means Adobe sucks.
I thought lack of iTunes was a feature. Rhythmbox is far superior to iTunes.
You pay for windows, but linux is free.
When I pay good money for software, shouldn't I have higher expectations? I paid MS to sort out the driver issues and they didn't do it.
The driver previously worked under windows, and now it does not.
And Linux developers basically have to reverse engineer every driver, because linux drivers have to be open source and so the kernel developers can't sign the NDAs required to get access to the hardware specs.
MS has a cozy relationship with hardware manufacturers, lots of money, a driver that works on a previous version of windows, and is able to sign NDAs. Really they can't make excuses.
Yup thats the reason right there. A lot of it comes down to cost. If a foreigner makes a threatening remark towards the president then they have one of two options:
1. Start an investigation to determine if he is serious and/or if he has the means to act on his threats. Put a flag in the Homeland security database so that if he tries to enter the US they would monitor his movements and who is is meeting with, etc.
2. Just ban him from entering the US.
I'm sure they have a huge list of procedures to follow. You email the president and tell him he's a prick, they probably query a database to see if you're already on file, and if that file indicates you're dangerous, then follow it up. If not its fine. You make a threat, that will be followed up, regardless of whether or not you're on file. If you're overseas that means you immediately get banned, and get a visit from the local police. Depending on what the police report back they may investigate further, or just drop it.
How do you tell from an email if someone is just drunk and stupid or is a deranged madman that is an actual threat? You ban a drunk asshole, who cares? but if you don't ban a deranged madman and something really bad happens...
No story here, just the secret service following procedure.
Well the thing about the Mexicans is that the government could put a stop to illegal immigration by just checking in on businesses and making sure all their employees are citizens or legal immigrants. This wouldn't be all that difficult to do really, since they already check to make sure people are paying taxes. They just need to cross reference the IRS database with the state's birth certificate databases and INS databases, And you'd have a big long list of people to deport.
Why don't they do this? because it would disrupt a lot of businesses.
So now we have a bunch of people who are technically illegal, but de facto legal (because the government will not take action). They are in the country and government and business have decided to allow them to stay in the country. If the powerful have decided to allow Mexicans to remain in the country should they not have the rights that everyone else in the country have?
yup, and also these scammers needed to sell fast, so they likely sold his house for a much lower price than what its worth. So the buyers get a really sweet deal for a house out of it. The bankers make money. The only one that gets screwed is the victim of the fraud.
Giving the guy his house back and refunding the buyers, would inconvenience the buyer and the bank. But this would be a good thing, I'd think. Then the bank and the buyer would be extra careful to check to make sure this isn't fraud.
But I guess the government doesn't want to interfere with the banks unless its to throw a bunch of money at them.
because now people that don't know you don't even have to waste their time following you around to know your routine.
If he was really mature he'd step aside and keep wikileaks out of this whole thing. What is more important to Julian Assange? Wikileaks or Julian Assange?
This is why they want him to step aside. If Assange truly is this hero fight to cast light on a dark world he would step aside and allow wikileaks to go on without him.
Assange is hiding behind wikileaks hoping his association with the organisation will help his case. Just an asshole using wikileaks as his presonal army to cover up his asshole behaviour towards women.
He could do the honourable thing and step down, but instead he's going to take wikileaks down with him.
the problem with mercenaries is that for a little bit of money they can turn against you.
pay two girls $500 to lay charges on someone, and someone else could pay them $1000 to give up the whole story on how the CIA bribed them.
And what if the Icelandic politician goes to the press? She's already heavily involved with wikileaks so she obviously doesn't have a problem with publishing sensitive information about US black ops. So the CIA is gonna make some threats against her which would be a bigger story than anything else wikileaks has ever published?
So you're basically saying the CIA could easily do something that is highly likely to backfire on them? They're stupid, but not that stupid.
As Rommel once said, in war you take risks but you never gamble. If the CIA were behind this it would be a massive gamble. They would have a hell of a lot more to lose than gain, and its much more likely they would lose than win.
In the course of writing this, the rebuttals came so easily, that I really must casually wonder: Are you wearing a tinfoil hat right now?
You might find it interesting that in the same time period, Canada had a similar plan to make a surprise attack on the US, destroying important infrastructure before the US could react.
you could just use the search bar in firefox, or type your queries directly into the url bar in chrome.
really, who goes to the google front page anymore, other than to check on some interesting doodle?
yup. Running a Tor node is no different from running a compromised server.
If someone is running a compromised server, A resposible ISP is supposed to disconnect it from the network.
a lot of ins a lot of outs... a lot of wha-have-yous... a lot of strands... a lot of strands in the old duder's head.
NYC in the 80s? Your dad probably had a coke habit. I imagine the withdrawal from using that much blow would indeed be "uncomfortable"
this is the problem... you have to label everyone to determine whether you agree or disagree. OMG he's a socialist! I hate him so much!
How about this: we look at each issue independently and and decide for ourselves what we want. Instead of saying "I'm with the tea party therefore I'm against gun control, I want lower taxes and stronger border control and no more mosques in America!" You decide for yourself your own opinion on each issue.
That is why most Americans are cowards. They are too afraid to think for themselves. They decide which group they're in and delegate all thought and decision making to others in that group.
Me? I think we should protect the environment, we should build more nuclear power plants to reduce global warming, people should be allowed to have guns (as long as they aren't insane), I'm for a strong free market, we should discourage government services being provided on a federal level except only where necessary, I think we should be more welcoming to immigrants, and there should be religious freedom for all.
I'm not a socialist, liberal, conservative, teabagger or whatever other label you can think up.
sure I don't know much about Tor. What you haven't answered is how can someone administering a Tor node prevent others from using it to attack other systems?
ok so then you're saying Tor is completely useless then since it can't even do http without endangering other servers.
not really a worry cooling down the planet... we already have effective ways of warming it up.
KeePass is a pretty good solution. it saves all your passwords into an encrypted file. All you have to remember is the password to get into KeePass and you have access to all your passwords. Most of the tim you can just click on the username field on the webpage, click on the sitename in KeePass, hit ctrl-v and it'll enter your username and password and submit it.
So you can have all your passwords for every site be a unique password of random characters, but have to only remember one password. Works for Windows, MacOS, Linux, and has a standalone version you can put on a thumbdrive if you need to use a computer at an internet cafe or whatever.
A simple keylogger won't get your passwords, they'd have to keep track of copy and paste operations to get your passwords.
this is why Tor is pointless. Oh sure you can ban one IP. But if someone set up a botnet to make attacks through Tor? And who are you banning, the originator of the attack or the node that passed it along to you? If you can track down the originator of the attack, can't you also track down people who are criticizing totalitarian governments?
And who maintains the blacklists? Could the government of say, Iran get every IP within Iran put on the blacklist, making Tor unavailable to everyone in the country?
Perhaps you should be limiting what people can do through Tor, ie. just http or https through port 80 only. That way you aren't going to be aiding the black hats and getting your internet connection turned off.
only in areas where they are trying to expand their business into. ie. if you search for social networking and the result is only pages that talk about google buzz, thats a problem. If you search for smart phone and you only see pages talking about android, thats a problem.
But that doesn't mean they have to return a page full of link farms, just because those sites used a lot of SEO tricks to make their pages seem relevant. Yes the link farms can complain that Google is costing them money (which they are), but Google's job is to return relevant results, not give page views to the scum of the internet.
The sad thing is the link farms may have a case. Google makes money through ad revenue, and the link farms make ad revenue. So it could be argued that Google is modifying search results to deny others ad revenue, keeping it for themselves. Its a pretty grey area. It all comes down to the whims of a judge
Its really dirty pool. Google prunes the link farms from search results to improve its product. MS funds the link farms' lawsuits against google. There are a lot of link farms so sooner or later they'll find a clueless judge and one of them is going to win. Which means Google will have to show that link farm in their results.
So basically MS is abusing the legal system to sabotage Google's product.
Google could do the same thing against Bing... but then that would go against their "do no evil" philosophy.
in the US maybe, but in countries where there is healthcare, the company doesn't pay for health insurance for its employees, so the expense of an employee is mostly just the employees incomes. In less litigious countries that gap shrinks even further.
uh that list is wrong. If Thailand and Cambodia are dictatorships ruled by their respective monarchs, then the UK is a dictatorship as well.
Also it doesn't make sense to spend millions on infrastructure when it will be destroyed in the next civil war... which will be next year.
Maybe we shouldn't be supplying warlords with weapons and ammunition... Oh we can't do that because then Communists/Islamists/Eurasia/Eastasia might take over the country!