They decided to put in place commissions and regulators that insure that companies are investigated and laws are upheld. What a bizarre concept. This is a corporation, why aren't they free to do what they want everywhere!
If you think that then you don't understand anti-trust. I think the Dutch government erred here. Apple is a closed platform upon which it can do what it likes. Their key responsibilities exist only to ensuring that customers of their store are treated equally and for the most part they effectively are with the odd case being streaming providers with out of store payment processors.
Other than the last two for which the jury is out, on account of being a completely closed ecosystem where hardware, software, and platform are under control of one company they aren't negatively impacting 3rd parties with their practices. There are no deals that disadvantage themselves to 3rd parties, there are no deals that prevent consumers from accessing services, etc.
and since it's a shitty live update site: "Extradition request from US confirmed Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.
In a statement it said:
Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster magistrates court as soon as possible."
Apparently, the US does think they have something they can extradite him for, because he's now been arrested under the extradition act [police.uk] on behalf of US authorities.
I can sue you right now. That doesn't mean I have anything I could sue you for with a hope of winning. Making an extradition request and having it granted are two different things.
Quite specifically this will have to go through a whole new legal trial since the previous extradition to Sweden was based on a completely different crime, country, and circumstance.
Let's brake down your statement and the GPs. You asserted that the US requesting extradition means the GP was wrong. Let's look at this:
The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him.
Correct, he was arrested for other reasons
We have nothing we can extradite him for.
Correct, just because the request went through doesn't mean it will be fulfilled or deemed lawful.
But Extradition to the US is out of the question. There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.
Correct and just a repeat from the above.
So the GP is not wrong, but since we're an international slide we'll forgive the misinterpretation of the english nuances.
It's much easier to migrate to a new Linux kernel than it is to migrate from Windows XP.
I challenge you to upgrade from 2.4.x series kernel (Released at the same time as Windows XP) to a modern kernel. You'll be begging for a windows 10 upgrade screen by the time you have a bash prompt and realised nothing else is working.
NO ONE is okay with this. If people were to vote on the question - "who wants every detail of your life snooped by an evil megacorp 24/7/365 with no warrant, no suspicion, and no recourse?" - the overwhelming majority would vote "fuck no".
That's because it's an irrelevant question which doesn't apply here. Remove your own personal biases by replacing evil megacorp with the word "google" allowing people to make an assessment of trustworthyness, and then list in the questions the benefits they have received in exchange and the question becomes and overwhelming "fuck yes" with a bit of "meh" from the more privacy conscious.
Would you let me punch you in the face? Would you let me punch you in the face if you knew I was weak as piss and I offered you $100 to do it?
Yes, because what people know is just a part of a complicated equation which also includes other factors such as what they do with the data, how much you trust them, and that latter one is inherently based on past performance as an indicator of perceived future performance.
So let me ask you a question: Can you point to actual tangible negative impacts that people have experienced as a result of Google knowing this data? Because fundamentally that makes up the trust component. People have a high trust because for all the data Google's collected they haven't actually been negatively impacted.
The other part of the equation people can point to: All the benefits that have arisen from google knowing where they are at all times. Mapping, traffic, and public transit to name the 3 obvious ones. More relevant search results. Cheaper energy bills when combined with Nest products etc.
Now if Microsoft collected even a fraction of what Google does I'd be getting the pitchforks out, especially since MS's business model doesn't depend on protecting your raw data. Amazon have only just been caught training their system with sound files while actually showing names, serial numbers and account information to the people doing that, fuck that noise. Google on the other hand seem to be quite competent with anonymising and controlling data.
Personally, it seems they are an engineer looking for a problem to solve to help justify their job... and that's just sad in itself.
Whats sad is assuming that someone's decision making process is at all dependent on a tweet. Can we just go back to a world where people understood that stuff posted on twitter was just worthless shit and not actually meant to be taken seriously already? Frankly I'm sick of every idiot reading a tweet and then declaring a war as a result.
Do you expect a warning every time you walk down the street while you talk that your conversation may be overheard by the person walking next to you? Do you expect a warning when you're in your home and someone has installed a microphone in your closet?
Congratulations, Google, you're training people to click on the "Proceed to x (unsafe)" link EVERY time
No. They are training IT experts who should be immune to to the training to do so. The number of times an ordinary user will experience a page with a legitimate SSL certificate error that they need to routinely click through is close to zero. The result is that people take pause.
Quite telling that your example talks about internal development sites. I'm not concerned too many users have to worry about those.
The dictionary is not a good source for determining the law. For that you could read the laws themselves, and no, legal tender does not need to be accepted as a medium for commercial exchange.
Legal tender in the USA only needs to be accepted to pay debts, debts also has a very specific meaning, and no you're not in debt between eating a meal in a restaurant and paying. Unless that restaurant made you sign a long legal contract explicitly stating the terms of the debt and its resolution. Then they would need to legally accept cash.
This layered approach exists. The bottom level is inherently safer design. The next level up is pressure relief. Only after those two do you get to instrumented safety systems.
The problem you have focusing on offline mechanical safety features is that unlike your train example in the process industry they are incredibly unreliable and have no diagnostics meaning you can't identify problems with them until they actually fail.
As a basic example take a check valve (mechanical valve with a spring loaded return that only allows flow in one direction). A typical analysis will assume a 50% failure rate in dirty service and 10% in clean service. Now take an instrumented backflow protection system that has an air actuated spring return valve along with differential pressure monitoring across it. Depending on your engineering design you could take 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher credit for this over a simple mechanical system.
Complexity does not mean something is less reliable.
I know it is inconvenient, but these sites should not be connected to the Internet.
No it's not inconvenient. It's not actually possible to operate them efficiently anymore. Heck it may not be possible to legally operate them without external connection to push off data in realtime.
Another poster has already told you an airgap is not a panacea. I would argue worse than that, an airgap is effectively bad for security as it leads to incredible overconfidence. Give me a well designed network monitored by a security team over "airgap is our security why try harder" any day, which is ultimately what any airgapped network will reduce to.
I'm with the judge on this one. The idea of not wearing earbuds is stupid as people who are deaf aren't barred from driving and neither are people who have loud cars, drive around in 2nd gear at 4k rpm, etc.
However the defense of "it wasn't on I sware" is a shitty one so the legal hoops that were jumped through seemed to make perfect sense. The distraction in this case isn't from listening to music, it's from... *oooh I like this song, unlock phone with fingerprint, click spotify, click the bar at the bottom, push that big heart button. *
I wear noise cancelling earmuffs when driving in germany because I can't even hear my radio over the sound of my engine when driving down the autobahn at 170 (which is close to where my car redlines).
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell is wrong with Europe?
They decided to put in place commissions and regulators that insure that companies are investigated and laws are upheld. What a bizarre concept. This is a corporation, why aren't they free to do what they want everywhere!
If you think that then you don't understand anti-trust. I think the Dutch government erred here. Apple is a closed platform upon which it can do what it likes. Their key responsibilities exist only to ensuring that customers of their store are treated equally and for the most part they effectively are with the odd case being streaming providers with out of store payment processors.
Other than the last two for which the jury is out, on account of being a completely closed ecosystem where hardware, software, and platform are under control of one company they aren't negatively impacting 3rd parties with their practices. There are no deals that disadvantage themselves to 3rd parties, there are no deals that prevent consumers from accessing services, etc.
There's currently no European arrest warrant outstanding for him or extradition request from the USA
That post didn't age well: https://www.theguardian.com/me...
and since it's a shitty live update site:
"Extradition request from US confirmed
Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.
In a statement it said:
Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster magistrates court as soon as possible."
Apparently, the US does think they have something they can extradite him for, because he's now been arrested under the extradition act [police.uk] on behalf of US authorities.
I can sue you right now. That doesn't mean I have anything I could sue you for with a hope of winning. Making an extradition request and having it granted are two different things.
Quite specifically this will have to go through a whole new legal trial since the previous extradition to Sweden was based on a completely different crime, country, and circumstance.
Let's brake down your statement and the GPs. You asserted that the US requesting extradition means the GP was wrong. Let's look at this:
The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him.
Correct, he was arrested for other reasons
We have nothing we can extradite him for.
Correct, just because the request went through doesn't mean it will be fulfilled or deemed lawful.
But Extradition to the US is out of the question. There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.
Correct and just a repeat from the above.
So the GP is not wrong, but since we're an international slide we'll forgive the misinterpretation of the english nuances.
Offering something for download doesn't mean it's not dead in technological terms.
Yes, and so what?
It's much easier to migrate to a new Linux kernel than it is to migrate from Windows XP.
I challenge you to upgrade from 2.4.x series kernel (Released at the same time as Windows XP) to a modern kernel. You'll be begging for a windows 10 upgrade screen by the time you have a bash prompt and realised nothing else is working.
to building a planet-sized telescope
That is taking liberties with the poetic license.
NO ONE is okay with this. If people were to vote on the question - "who wants every detail of your life snooped by an evil megacorp 24/7/365 with no warrant, no suspicion, and no recourse?" - the overwhelming majority would vote "fuck no".
That's because it's an irrelevant question which doesn't apply here. Remove your own personal biases by replacing evil megacorp with the word "google" allowing people to make an assessment of trustworthyness, and then list in the questions the benefits they have received in exchange and the question becomes and overwhelming "fuck yes" with a bit of "meh" from the more privacy conscious.
Would you let me punch you in the face?
Would you let me punch you in the face if you knew I was weak as piss and I offered you $100 to do it?
Two very different questions.
Is everybody really OK with this?
Yes, because what people know is just a part of a complicated equation which also includes other factors such as what they do with the data, how much you trust them, and that latter one is inherently based on past performance as an indicator of perceived future performance.
So let me ask you a question: Can you point to actual tangible negative impacts that people have experienced as a result of Google knowing this data? Because fundamentally that makes up the trust component. People have a high trust because for all the data Google's collected they haven't actually been negatively impacted.
The other part of the equation people can point to: All the benefits that have arisen from google knowing where they are at all times. Mapping, traffic, and public transit to name the 3 obvious ones. More relevant search results. Cheaper energy bills when combined with Nest products etc.
Now if Microsoft collected even a fraction of what Google does I'd be getting the pitchforks out, especially since MS's business model doesn't depend on protecting your raw data. Amazon have only just been caught training their system with sound files while actually showing names, serial numbers and account information to the people doing that, fuck that noise. Google on the other hand seem to be quite competent with anonymising and controlling data.
Personally, it seems they are an engineer looking for a problem to solve to help justify their job... and that's just sad in itself.
Whats sad is assuming that someone's decision making process is at all dependent on a tweet. Can we just go back to a world where people understood that stuff posted on twitter was just worthless shit and not actually meant to be taken seriously already? Frankly I'm sick of every idiot reading a tweet and then declaring a war as a result.
If I'm going to verify the file on my end anyway
What are you working for the NSA or something? Normal people don't do that.
It's not stupid at all.
Do you expect a warning every time you walk down the street while you talk that your conversation may be overheard by the person walking next to you?
Do you expect a warning when you're in your home and someone has installed a microphone in your closet?
There are completely different use cases.
I am not generating a bunch of certs for staging servers or other environments that are highly volatile and constantly built and torn down.
Your slackness in automating something that is easily automated shouldn't rely on Google adding yet another option to their product.
Congratulations, Google, you're training people to click on the "Proceed to x (unsafe)" link EVERY time
No. They are training IT experts who should be immune to to the training to do so. The number of times an ordinary user will experience a page with a legitimate SSL certificate error that they need to routinely click through is close to zero. The result is that people take pause.
Quite telling that your example talks about internal development sites. I'm not concerned too many users have to worry about those.
Why oh why does Google think that they know better than everyone?
I'm going to guess it's because they spend more money on R&D and human interaction studies than the typical armchair warrior does.
The dictionary is not a good source for determining the law. For that you could read the laws themselves, and no, legal tender does not need to be accepted as a medium for commercial exchange.
Legal tender in the USA only needs to be accepted to pay debts, debts also has a very specific meaning, and no you're not in debt between eating a meal in a restaurant and paying. Unless that restaurant made you sign a long legal contract explicitly stating the terms of the debt and its resolution. Then they would need to legally accept cash.
and they can't enter an incorrect "tip" amount later
I don't understand. What is this "later" thing you speak of? Do you not see the fixed price on your machine before you enter your PIN?
Cool story, but why would that situation mean he can't get a savings account with a debit/credit card?
Do Americans actually charge for these? Do for some reason you need to have a good credit rating to pay with debit over VISA?
If so the problem here isn't credit, the people or the cashless concept.
Just consider the power VISA would have if there was no ready alternatives to paying with VISA.
I do wonder what stretch of the imagination converts cashless to mean VISA, or even single company, or even single technology for that matter.
This layered approach exists. The bottom level is inherently safer design. The next level up is pressure relief. Only after those two do you get to instrumented safety systems.
The problem you have focusing on offline mechanical safety features is that unlike your train example in the process industry they are incredibly unreliable and have no diagnostics meaning you can't identify problems with them until they actually fail.
As a basic example take a check valve (mechanical valve with a spring loaded return that only allows flow in one direction). A typical analysis will assume a 50% failure rate in dirty service and 10% in clean service.
Now take an instrumented backflow protection system that has an air actuated spring return valve along with differential pressure monitoring across it. Depending on your engineering design you could take 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher credit for this over a simple mechanical system.
Complexity does not mean something is less reliable.
I know it is inconvenient, but these sites should not be connected to the Internet.
No it's not inconvenient. It's not actually possible to operate them efficiently anymore. Heck it may not be possible to legally operate them without external connection to push off data in realtime.
Another poster has already told you an airgap is not a panacea. I would argue worse than that, an airgap is effectively bad for security as it leads to incredible overconfidence. Give me a well designed network monitored by a security team over "airgap is our security why try harder" any day, which is ultimately what any airgapped network will reduce to.
I'm with the judge on this one. The idea of not wearing earbuds is stupid as people who are deaf aren't barred from driving and neither are people who have loud cars, drive around in 2nd gear at 4k rpm, etc.
However the defense of "it wasn't on I sware" is a shitty one so the legal hoops that were jumped through seemed to make perfect sense. The distraction in this case isn't from listening to music, it's from ... *oooh I like this song, unlock phone with fingerprint, click spotify, click the bar at the bottom, push that big heart button. *
I wear noise cancelling earmuffs when driving in germany because I can't even hear my radio over the sound of my engine when driving down the autobahn at 170 (which is close to where my car redlines).
shoving ear buds in your ears reduces your ability to hear what is going on around you
So then people are also fined for being deaf and for revving their engines beyond 4k rpm then right?
"Distracted" is patent nonsense.
Not at all. The distraction isn't as a result of listening to music, it's the result of interacting with an electronic device.