You also forgot to be correct. If Google never displayed passwords in plaintext, they could prevent 99% of users from reading them, because only a small percentage of people would be likely to use hacking tools to extract saved passwords. But anybody can click with the mouse. It's true that if they're at my computer they can browse the web and pretend to be me. But actually knowing my password raises that to a new level, because they can log in elsewhere and spy on me, etc. So is Google saying that I should never let anybody else sit down at my computer and use it, for fear that they can casually look up my passwords? Really?
It's been said that door locks keep honest people out. A savvy crook can bypass them easily, but they work for 99% of people. The same could be said for always showing the little asterisks for saved passwords. It's just stupid of Google (and FF etc.) to make them so easy to view.
yes.. they are the right wing christian's theocratic wet dream
No, right wing Christians are generally much bigger fans of Saudi Arabia's only truly democratic and generally freedom-espousing neighbor, Israel. To get on Israel's bad side in terms of speech, you pretty much have to give a threat of genocide. Which of course actually does happen frequently due to the loveliness of Islamic Sharia and its campaigns against the Western world. Which brings us back to Saudi Arabia.
When you (i.e. Microsoft) have already bought large quantities of a product that are sitting in your warehouse, that's called a "sunk cost". There is no way to "save" that money you've already spent; the only question is how best to use the warehoused inventory to make new income. In terms of business strategy, you actually pretty much ignore sunk costs when deciding what to do next.
They could still severely lock down the platform to improve battery life for example by freezing all threads of such apps when the user wasn't in desktop mode, and it's assumed that not all APIs would be available. Of course, being able to run a lot of Windows apps "in theory" does you no good as long as developers haven't yet recompiled their apps for ARM. But perception is important.
Maybe they're worried that (a) it would be too much work to expose and support the legacy desktop APIs for ARM, or perhaps even more likely, (b) it would cut into their Surface Pro x86 sales. In my opinion, they should frantically be trying to make Windows tablets get every little edge they can over the opposition.
But what do I know? I am not Steve Ballmer, and spend a lot more time sitting on a chair than hurling it.
It's too easy to end up with laws just as stupid and evil as those against "impaired driving". The wrongdoing isn't impaired driving, it's incompetent driving, incompetent for WHATEVER REASON, but even then only as a condition in an event which involves injury to other people and destruction of their property. Otherwise no wrong has been done to anyone.
I see your point, however, you should consider that this is the sort of law that by its very nature must not be written exactly at the "fence line" where impairment actually kills people. In other words, the line has to be drawn some distance over on the safe side of things. This is an inconvenience to people who can hold their liquor and drive safely, but raising the legal BAC limit would open the floodgates of homicidal drunk driving. If a mental/physical coordination test were exclusively administered instead of a blood alcohol content test, that would be fine, but the legal limit would again have to be set somewhere well over on the safe side of things, which would still make some people mad. So I think your objection is unreasonable in the last analysis.
I think it's meaningless and a waste of time. The people in charge today didn't commit the offense, and if you want to address past offenses in UK history, a more important place to start would be at Smithfield anyway. I am more in favor of finding people whose rights are being violated today and doing something about that.
There's nothing wrong with the math, which indicates up to about 6000 miles per hour. The other number you see is up to 4000 Missing Passengers' Heads, which is part of the safety rating.
Nope, I'm not OK with banning guns, specifically because shootings in self defense must be legal. Isn't that the argument? So what's the difference? Someone dies there too.
No, that is what is known as a reading comprehension fail. Maybe look again?
Oh right. The difference is your precious manhood is assaulted if a woman decides to kill your potential offspring. That must be prevented at all costs. Slaver.
Ha ha ha ha, I love hearing liberals whine. Pretty sure it's the natural vocalization of their species. "Waaaa, I can't kill my baby, so I'm being repressed!" (Of course I'm just being mean, I have liberal friends who engage in rational, adult debate, pretty much exactly like we are not doing.)
Nope, I'm not OK with banning any abortions, specifically because abortions to save the life of the mother must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any shootings, specifically because shootings in self defense must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any industrial pollution, specifically because personally exhaling carbon dioxide must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any sexual assault, specifically because consensual S&M must be legal.
Millions of murdered infants thank you for your thoughtful and reasonable approach to this issue.
So why not drive through the inner city slums and leak clouds of some highly toxic gas with a short half life in order to reduce that portion of the population that seems to be a drain on society? All that's required is that people don't want to keep paying for them, right? No moral qualms need be considered in deciding whether it's OK to murder people, just whether somebody volunteers to pony up and write a check to cover their living expenses?
Welcome to the world. It's a complicated place that defies simplifications. Sometimes you have to do (or legislate) the right thing even though it is messy and complicated.
When you come up with a way to save all these babies you care so desperately about that doesn't sound like slavery for women, then we'll talk. No, that's not hyperbole. Being forced to bear a child against their will is precisely what happened to slaves.
The concept of disallowing abortion as slavery for women is kind of interesting, and I've been thinking about it some more. So who would be the slave owner in this case? Presumably the baby? Gotta say they are the cutest little slave drivers I've ever seen, and they really need to work on their intimidation skills.
If you say that the government would be the slave owner by banning late term abortion, then I guess all of us are slaves of the government, because the government bans murder as a general rule. For example, I'm forced to not kill my kids by the government. Waaaaah, I'm a slave!!! (Actually, just kidding of course; I love my kids.)
The vast majority of abortions are not about maternal mortality. In fact, it's very, very rare that aborting a baby is medically indicated to save the life of the mother. So you're OK with banning abortion except to save the life of the mother? That sounds good to me, let's do it. We'll go ahead and schedule a two person march on Washington tomorrow.
I commend you for recognizing the moral depravity of warfare in general, but I can't agree that a few months of inconvenience justifies killing an innocent human being.
And what's with this obsession with abortion lately... It's popped up even in Snowden threads. It's bizarre.
The right to life debate stays on the front burner because it involves innocent people being killed everyday (late term babies). Happy to clear that up for you.
I dunno, I guess I was just born with an innate hatred of the female gender. I wake up each morning wondering how I can beat them down just a little bit more, and guarantee that the glass ceiling suspended over their heads will just tantalize and torture their suppressed spirits.... Or maybe you're just an idiot who is trolling? Yeah, I guess the latter.
P.S. I am entirely in favor of using contraception, and anybody who thinks it's hard to get in our country is misinformed. It's cheap and widely available, which is good.
... in comparison to the fundamental right to life for late term fetuses and victims of partial birth (or even post-birth) abortion. A lot of the people casting stones at Card for not obsequiously leaping to redefine the word "marriage" (despite its pretty much universal hetero meaning for all of recorded history) give a collective yawn as babies are butchered. They even have the gall to call anti-abortion activism a "war on women" despite overseas abortions literally slaughtering young women by the millions so families can instead have a male child. Civil rights leaders line up to defend abortion in America despite it being (both by original intent and unarguable effect) a massive ethnic cleansing operation to cull babies of color.
Throw that black baby on the trash heap, but O! the Horror! if you don't let John and Steve play a little game and pretend (by absurdly borrowing hetero nomenclature) that they are a fundamental unit of the biological continuation of the human species.
Civil rights issue, my behind. The sickening irony of the modern liberal mindset makes me mad.
"Stealing" is a poor choice of words to refer to copying information. When you steal from a house, then the owners of the house don't have those possessions anymore. So no, it really is not as simple as your analogy.
If you read those comments in a hostile light, then sure, then it looks like he's up to no good. But just from those snippets, it's ambiguous. As far as the phishing thing, how the heck do you think a security researcher would describe the importance of a vulnerability discovery? It appears that Weev had no intent to use the data maliciously, he just exposed AT&T's wrongdoing to the world. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
I think using a proprietary standard for this has potential for disaster in the long term. QR codes would be much better. Scenario: the author of "Paperbak" discovers a huge improvement in his algorithm and deprecates the old version. 20 years into the future somebody needs to decode their stuff, and they search for the source code to "Paperbak" and realize that the only version they can find on the future internet is the "new/improved" version that can't read their stuff. So they are just the lucky owners of some paper decorated with a very specific arrangement of dots.
With QR Codes, on the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the knowledge of their format will be lost in our lifetimes. They have their own Wikipedia entry describing their structure, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
You also forgot to be correct. If Google never displayed passwords in plaintext, they could prevent 99% of users from reading them, because only a small percentage of people would be likely to use hacking tools to extract saved passwords. But anybody can click with the mouse. It's true that if they're at my computer they can browse the web and pretend to be me. But actually knowing my password raises that to a new level, because they can log in elsewhere and spy on me, etc. So is Google saying that I should never let anybody else sit down at my computer and use it, for fear that they can casually look up my passwords? Really?
It's been said that door locks keep honest people out. A savvy crook can bypass them easily, but they work for 99% of people. The same could be said for always showing the little asterisks for saved passwords. It's just stupid of Google (and FF etc.) to make them so easy to view.
yes.. they are the right wing christian's theocratic wet dream
No, right wing Christians are generally much bigger fans of Saudi Arabia's only truly democratic and generally freedom-espousing neighbor, Israel. To get on Israel's bad side in terms of speech, you pretty much have to give a threat of genocide. Which of course actually does happen frequently due to the loveliness of Islamic Sharia and its campaigns against the Western world. Which brings us back to Saudi Arabia.
u mad steve?
The more they sell, the more money they lose.
When you (i.e. Microsoft) have already bought large quantities of a product that are sitting in your warehouse, that's called a "sunk cost". There is no way to "save" that money you've already spent; the only question is how best to use the warehoused inventory to make new income. In terms of business strategy, you actually pretty much ignore sunk costs when deciding what to do next.
They could still severely lock down the platform to improve battery life for example by freezing all threads of such apps when the user wasn't in desktop mode, and it's assumed that not all APIs would be available. Of course, being able to run a lot of Windows apps "in theory" does you no good as long as developers haven't yet recompiled their apps for ARM. But perception is important.
Maybe they're worried that (a) it would be too much work to expose and support the legacy desktop APIs for ARM, or perhaps even more likely, (b) it would cut into their Surface Pro x86 sales. In my opinion, they should frantically be trying to make Windows tablets get every little edge they can over the opposition.
But what do I know? I am not Steve Ballmer, and spend a lot more time sitting on a chair than hurling it.
It's too easy to end up with laws just as stupid and evil as those against "impaired driving". The wrongdoing isn't impaired driving, it's incompetent driving, incompetent for WHATEVER REASON, but even then only as a condition in an event which involves injury to other people and destruction of their property. Otherwise no wrong has been done to anyone.
I see your point, however, you should consider that this is the sort of law that by its very nature must not be written exactly at the "fence line" where impairment actually kills people. In other words, the line has to be drawn some distance over on the safe side of things. This is an inconvenience to people who can hold their liquor and drive safely, but raising the legal BAC limit would open the floodgates of homicidal drunk driving. If a mental/physical coordination test were exclusively administered instead of a blood alcohol content test, that would be fine, but the legal limit would again have to be set somewhere well over on the safe side of things, which would still make some people mad. So I think your objection is unreasonable in the last analysis.
I then spend time with open mined smart people when I get sick and tired of the ignorant, bigots, and Bible thumpers.
I am horrified at your embrace of environmentally unsound mineral extraction practices.
I think it's meaningless and a waste of time. The people in charge today didn't commit the offense, and if you want to address past offenses in UK history, a more important place to start would be at Smithfield anyway. I am more in favor of finding people whose rights are being violated today and doing something about that.
I'm glad our guys and gals at NASA are so professional. I would not make a very good mission control team member in this circumstance.
There's nothing wrong with the math, which indicates up to about 6000 miles per hour. The other number you see is up to 4000 Missing Passengers' Heads, which is part of the safety rating.
Nope, I'm not OK with banning guns, specifically because shootings in self defense must be legal. Isn't that the argument? So what's the difference? Someone dies there too.
No, that is what is known as a reading comprehension fail. Maybe look again?
Oh right. The difference is your precious manhood is assaulted if a woman decides to kill your potential offspring. That must be prevented at all costs. Slaver.
Ha ha ha ha, I love hearing liberals whine. Pretty sure it's the natural vocalization of their species. "Waaaa, I can't kill my baby, so I'm being repressed!" (Of course I'm just being mean, I have liberal friends who engage in rational, adult debate, pretty much exactly like we are not doing.)
Nope, I'm not OK with banning any abortions, specifically because abortions to save the life of the mother must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any shootings, specifically because shootings in self defense must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any industrial pollution, specifically because personally exhaling carbon dioxide must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any sexual assault, specifically because consensual S&M must be legal.
Millions of murdered infants thank you for your thoughtful and reasonable approach to this issue.
So why not drive through the inner city slums and leak clouds of some highly toxic gas with a short half life in order to reduce that portion of the population that seems to be a drain on society? All that's required is that people don't want to keep paying for them, right? No moral qualms need be considered in deciding whether it's OK to murder people, just whether somebody volunteers to pony up and write a check to cover their living expenses?
Welcome to the world. It's a complicated place that defies simplifications. Sometimes you have to do (or legislate) the right thing even though it is messy and complicated.
When you come up with a way to save all these babies you care so desperately about that doesn't sound like slavery for women, then we'll talk. No, that's not hyperbole. Being forced to bear a child against their will is precisely what happened to slaves.
The concept of disallowing abortion as slavery for women is kind of interesting, and I've been thinking about it some more. So who would be the slave owner in this case? Presumably the baby? Gotta say they are the cutest little slave drivers I've ever seen, and they really need to work on their intimidation skills.
If you say that the government would be the slave owner by banning late term abortion, then I guess all of us are slaves of the government, because the government bans murder as a general rule. For example, I'm forced to not kill my kids by the government. Waaaaah, I'm a slave!!! (Actually, just kidding of course; I love my kids.)
The vast majority of abortions are not about maternal mortality. In fact, it's very, very rare that aborting a baby is medically indicated to save the life of the mother. So you're OK with banning abortion except to save the life of the mother? That sounds good to me, let's do it. We'll go ahead and schedule a two person march on Washington tomorrow.
I commend you for recognizing the moral depravity of warfare in general, but I can't agree that a few months of inconvenience justifies killing an innocent human being.
Contraception is in general a good and helpful thing. Abortion of late term fetuses equates to infanticide, and should be legislated as such.
And what's with this obsession with abortion lately... It's popped up even in Snowden threads. It's bizarre.
The right to life debate stays on the front burner because it involves innocent people being killed everyday (late term babies). Happy to clear that up for you.
So why do you hate women?
I dunno, I guess I was just born with an innate hatred of the female gender. I wake up each morning wondering how I can beat them down just a little bit more, and guarantee that the glass ceiling suspended over their heads will just tantalize and torture their suppressed spirits.... Or maybe you're just an idiot who is trolling? Yeah, I guess the latter.
P.S. I am entirely in favor of using contraception, and anybody who thinks it's hard to get in our country is misinformed. It's cheap and widely available, which is good.
... in comparison to the fundamental right to life for late term fetuses and victims of partial birth (or even post-birth) abortion. A lot of the people casting stones at Card for not obsequiously leaping to redefine the word "marriage" (despite its pretty much universal hetero meaning for all of recorded history) give a collective yawn as babies are butchered. They even have the gall to call anti-abortion activism a "war on women" despite overseas abortions literally slaughtering young women by the millions so families can instead have a male child. Civil rights leaders line up to defend abortion in America despite it being (both by original intent and unarguable effect) a massive ethnic cleansing operation to cull babies of color.
Throw that black baby on the trash heap, but O! the Horror! if you don't let John and Steve play a little game and pretend (by absurdly borrowing hetero nomenclature) that they are a fundamental unit of the biological continuation of the human species.
Civil rights issue, my behind. The sickening irony of the modern liberal mindset makes me mad.
It's worse than you realize. In fact, 100% of people who work on Open Source Software die.
Why don't you just say he copied the information, my vocab-challenged AC?
"Stealing" is a poor choice of words to refer to copying information. When you steal from a house, then the owners of the house don't have those possessions anymore. So no, it really is not as simple as your analogy.
If you read those comments in a hostile light, then sure, then it looks like he's up to no good. But just from those snippets, it's ambiguous. As far as the phishing thing, how the heck do you think a security researcher would describe the importance of a vulnerability discovery? It appears that Weev had no intent to use the data maliciously, he just exposed AT&T's wrongdoing to the world. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
I think using a proprietary standard for this has potential for disaster in the long term. QR codes would be much better. Scenario: the author of "Paperbak" discovers a huge improvement in his algorithm and deprecates the old version. 20 years into the future somebody needs to decode their stuff, and they search for the source code to "Paperbak" and realize that the only version they can find on the future internet is the "new/improved" version that can't read their stuff. So they are just the lucky owners of some paper decorated with a very specific arrangement of dots.
With QR Codes, on the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the knowledge of their format will be lost in our lifetimes. They have their own Wikipedia entry describing their structure, for example.