In the long run, he's not going to be satisfied until he's created his own OS, kernel and all because he calls anything he didn't write a "broken concept," whatever that is
How about we get someone to fork the Systemd that distros have adopted and start working on fixing it,
paring it down, and removing unneeded functionality into separate optional related projects?
If you get a shell in one of my chroot's used for security, then.....
Your uid and gid are not going to be 0. Good luck telling the kernel to try and get you out.
There aren't going to be any/dev,/proc, or other special filesystems inside your chroot.
There aren't going to be any compilers or setuid binaries inside your chroot
If this is a FTP area, there won't be any binaries at all
Only the minimum files actually necessary for the program that uses that chroot are going to be found inside that chroot.
You won't have a chmod() command anywhere available inside that chroot.
All unnecessary POSIX capabilities will have been masked out from the process.
There won't be any writable locations in your chroot, the whole chroot will be mounted on a read-only file system,
except if there is a place where writes are required by the legitimate software, And those mount points will have been marked as noexec.
The kernel will be running PaX or GRSecurity, such that most user data areas are non-executable, and
memory pages expected to be executable of programs will get marked as read-only as they are launched,
so only available binaries can be used to communicate with the kernel through syscalls.
In short: I think chroot is plenty good for security.
There's no way in hell you are breaking out, without a straight up kernel arbitrary execution exploit.
Lennart Poettering's long story short: "`su` is really a broken concept
Declaring established concepts as broken so you can "fix" them.
Su is not a broken concept; it's a long well-established fundamental of BSD Unix/Linux. You need a shell with some commands to be run with additional privileges in the original user's context.
If you need a full login you invoke 'su -' or 'sudo bash -'
Deciding what a full login comprises is the shell's responsibility, not your init system's job.
I don't want a tracker device to give every advertiser every single piece of data the phone gets. I don't want a media device slinging ads, loaded with bloatware.
You can either have a smartphone, or you can avoid having those things, not all 3 things.
Nokia 3310
for no ads, bloatware, trackers for advertisers.
And what if the passenger doesn't want the car to stop—can she override the command, or does the police officer have ultimate control?
No... the driver already surrendered ultimate control to the car by choosing a self-driving vehicle, and
I expect the vehicle to obey the law, Even over the driver's wishes, which says that citizens must follow
a lawful official's orders, unless following the order clearly violates civil rights or creates an immediate safety hazard for
themselves or another person.
Being required to stop your vehicle and pull over to be detained is a legal reasonable order,
So long as the car can legitimate establish the authority of the person directing.
Your self-driving car should take some precautions, in case the person gesturing your car to stop is
a crook in disguise.
I see a possibility of allowing the driver to override a gesture, if the driver has
the autonomous vehicle place a 911 call and hold the horn down.
The driver's picture identity and vehicle info will be automatically transmitted.
can you give me another example of where radio signals are scrambled by the government?
My understanding is that some US law enforcement SWAT, Bomb Squad teams and, other counter-terrorism forces might employ tactical jamming devices when conducting certain raids in order to suppress targets' access to cellular data networks and other wireless communications, until personal electronics have been secured with targets in custody, this also helps prevent video footage of raids from getting released or saved to the cloud.
The FCC is primarily a regulator over private use of spectrum.
The FCC authority over government users is more limited, and is mostly through cooperative agreement, because gov't users should obey the law. In particular: the FCC is more restricted or unable to take any enforcement action against usage within military and executive branches of government that officials within those departments have authorized. If the military chose to jam all frequences for a period of time, the FCC would have no recourse other than to protest.
Private industry and prison officials have already worked with the FCC on ways of getting cell phones blocked, which is technology already being used ----- blocking cell phones through cell tower spoofing is already being done by prisons through a certain company's solution.
Then the Drones will deliver to where they are outside, instead of the yard.
The top of the line consumer drones can only fly for about 10 minutes tops.
So work out the maximum expected travel distance of the drones at full speed that bad guys are likely to have at their disposal, then mark out that radius, add 20% and make that entire area an "Official Drones Only" zone.
Build future prisons with at least twice that radius of buffer zone around them that nobody is allowed to enter.
Any drones found flying in the exclusion zone get shot down.
You are suggesting removing the existing 'old' infrastructure where you can plan for things,
No I am not suggesting removing things... there will always be demand for traditional hotels and commercial transportation arrangements. These things will likely have a higher price, since services such as AirBnb and Uber will inexpensively service people who don't need pre-defined committed and guaranteed arrangements.
As the demand falls, some but not all players go out of business...... But entities like businesses still need guaranteed hotel rooms and transportation services, so there is still a market for them, just a much smaller more niche one.
to replace it with a host of 'disruptive' systems where everything is just-in-time and tied to demand, for the benefit of companies like Uber
No.... it is for the benefit of people actually. The presumption is services like Uber generally lower not increase costs, which is the entire point; the costs are lower by not having artificial scarcity. But meeting unpredictable demand is still a problem; it's even harder for Taxis, where the result of demand surge is just that you don't get a ride at all, so it's not like this is just an Uber problem.
Except it's probably NOT either (1) or (2), but both. It's probably (1), but Uber is keeping an additional or lion's share of the amount of the additional money (As much as it can, after figuring out the price elasticity of the market), and then sharing the additional fares with drivers (Probably a significant portion, BUT as little as they think is necessary to achieve the desired incentivizing affect).
Because paying more allows Uber to drive supply to meet that demand.
If Uber drivers aren't paid anymore during high-demand times, then there is no incentive for more than normal drives to work during those times to meet the additional excess demand.
Because Taxi drivers are more like employees, and Uber drivers are essentially "independent contractors"
Taxi drivers get paid but have to meet daily targets, otherwise they get paid less, or lose it all. The driver don't collect more during high demand times, BUT even if they did: it's the dispatcher, not the driver that stands to profit.
Taxi drivers are also a regulated monopoly.
However, the Taxi drivers are incentivized since they can meet their daily target more quickly working in a high-demand area, then exceed it, and the profits will go up, and therefore, their commissions in dollars will increase.
Surge pricing is a good idea; the problem seems like the amount is too much.
So during a surge.... instead, warn would-be passengers about high demand and offer them the chance to place an additional payment to "bid" for the next ride as a prepaid fixed dollar kickback, not an increase in fare or not additional $$ per mile travelled, but a payment for increase in priority ---- with bid taken into account, as well as total time spent in the queue, when deciding who is next in line to be matched
The passengers will then have to wait, and the bid will be taken into account before matching up a driver with riders.
Then, instead of the driver actually receiving the bid --- the bids are pooled and distributed to the drivers fairly based on their percentage of fare dollars collected for passengers moved per mile driven within the surge area.
In fact, "crap in a storage unit" is probably one of the most secure, low cost way of storing backups
Except in a generic storage pod..... any random thief is one pair of bolt cutters away from raiding your unit for anything interesting, and insurance only covers the replacement cost of the media itself, not the data on it.
There are thousands of other possible reasons to shutdown that have nothing to do with security,
for example: business not doing well enough to continue: poor market penetration, people not interested in their product, competition eating their lunch.
then you'll just have more stations to compete with because you can fight for spectrum with people who are farther away.
Access points that endpoints connect to should be required be minimum power, minimum range,
either that, OR providing public network access and equal treatment for all endpoints.
Private network APs should be limited to doing dense coverage with APs about range about 50 feet.
We could use a protocol that allows fair access to the longer-range data channels and Only for endpoints that are making only a site-to-site connection with minimum threshold of distance away from each other, And no AP functionality utilizing the same radio.
So longer distances can be covered wirelessly, with minimal unnecessary contention.
I'm sensing that you have a policy of zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. Maybe it's time for a little leeway in this area.
Maybe he's just waiting for someone with a zero tolerance policy for people who have a zero tolerance policy toward people who have a zero tolerance policy toward zero tolerance policies?
Most places I've been at have a VERY strict policy of not talking to the media or representing the company in any way without permission
Companies can have a policy against talking to media ON BEHALF of the company. It wasn't clear from the summary if the person involved purported to be speaking on behalf of Nintendo or not. If not, then it is possible that Nintendo could be in legal trouble for their actions in that case.
A policy of not communicating at all with the media or in public such as on Facebook, Youtube, blog posts, etc (especially about matters such as conditions of work, salary, etc) would be an unlawful policy, since it would interfere with labor rights regarding protected concerted activities that have protected status under federal law.
Just having published policy itself that intimidates against exercise of protected rights is a violation of the law, and enforcing an unlawful policy is itself unlawful.
The employee's lawyers could potentially have a field day with that, if an unlawful policy such as "Never talk to the media" were being enforced, even if the actual activity involved with the firing wasn't protected activity
Also, from 2012 on there has been some popularity.
I'm guessing iRobot's claimed innovation is you aren't going to have to bury a wire around the perimeter of your yard anymore?
It doesn't sound like a very interesting improvement to me.
If a robotic mower will do it for you, then putting down the wire doesn't seem like much cost.
The real problem at least around here, is the yards are not even at all.... there are lots of little dirt hills and muddy soil depressions..
place where drainage is poor, etc.
Shrubs and little patches of garden, and small plants all over the place that cannot be mowed.
It's kind of tough for a human to take care of it, having to dodge dozens of little obstacles, let alone a robot.
There should be a class-action lawsuit from all content creators affected against the DMCA letter spewing company AND the studio who hired them for gross-negligence And copyright abuse.
They should seek to have creator's copyright interest in the new film struck down by the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
In the long run, he's not going to be satisfied until he's created his own OS, kernel and all because he calls anything he didn't write a "broken concept," whatever that is
How about we get someone to fork the Systemd that distros have adopted and start working on fixing it, paring it down, and removing unneeded functionality into separate optional related projects?
You can ALWAYS "break out" of chroot.
If you get a shell in one of my chroot's used for security, then.....
In short: I think chroot is plenty good for security. There's no way in hell you are breaking out, without a straight up kernel arbitrary execution exploit.
Lennart Poettering's long story short: "`su` is really a broken concept
Declaring established concepts as broken so you can "fix" them.
Su is not a broken concept; it's a long well-established fundamental of BSD Unix/Linux. You need a shell with some commands to be run with additional privileges in the original user's context.
If you need a full login you invoke 'su -' or 'sudo bash -'
Deciding what a full login comprises is the shell's responsibility, not your init system's job.
I don't want a tracker device to give every advertiser every single piece of data the phone gets. I don't want a media device slinging ads, loaded with bloatware.
You can either have a smartphone, or you can avoid having those things, not all 3 things.
Nokia 3310 for no ads, bloatware, trackers for advertisers.
It's not a smartphone, but it is a smart phone.
Don't worry. You'll feel better when it's not Verizon offering you an optional monitoring service for a small monthly fee.
It will look like nothing compared to your Self-Driving Car Cloud Support fee of $0.30 per mile driven.
And what if the passenger doesn't want the car to stop—can she override the command, or does the police officer have ultimate control?
No... the driver already surrendered ultimate control to the car by choosing a self-driving vehicle, and I expect the vehicle to obey the law, Even over the driver's wishes, which says that citizens must follow a lawful official's orders, unless following the order clearly violates civil rights or creates an immediate safety hazard for themselves or another person.
Being required to stop your vehicle and pull over to be detained is a legal reasonable order, So long as the car can legitimate establish the authority of the person directing.
Your self-driving car should take some precautions, in case the person gesturing your car to stop is a crook in disguise.
I see a possibility of allowing the driver to override a gesture, if the driver has the autonomous vehicle place a 911 call and hold the horn down. The driver's picture identity and vehicle info will be automatically transmitted.
can you give me another example of where radio signals are scrambled by the government?
My understanding is that some US law enforcement SWAT, Bomb Squad teams and, other counter-terrorism forces might employ tactical jamming devices when conducting certain raids in order to suppress targets' access to cellular data networks and other wireless communications, until personal electronics have been secured with targets in custody, this also helps prevent video footage of raids from getting released or saved to the cloud.
Have fun getting the FCC to approve that idea.
The FCC is primarily a regulator over private use of spectrum. The FCC authority over government users is more limited, and is mostly through cooperative agreement, because gov't users should obey the law. In particular: the FCC is more restricted or unable to take any enforcement action against usage within military and executive branches of government that officials within those departments have authorized. If the military chose to jam all frequences for a period of time, the FCC would have no recourse other than to protest.
Private industry and prison officials have already worked with the FCC on ways of getting cell phones blocked, which is technology already being used ----- blocking cell phones through cell tower spoofing is already being done by prisons through a certain company's solution.
Then the Drones will deliver to where they are outside, instead of the yard.
The top of the line consumer drones can only fly for about 10 minutes tops.
So work out the maximum expected travel distance of the drones at full speed that bad guys are likely to have at their disposal, then mark out that radius, add 20% and make that entire area an "Official Drones Only" zone.
Build future prisons with at least twice that radius of buffer zone around them that nobody is allowed to enter.
Any drones found flying in the exclusion zone get shot down.
Okay... so... don't have those areas.
Sure.... but why not just build a fenced in area that drones cannot enter?
Low tech method would be to cover the yard with netting.
High tech method would be to have their own tethered drones or sensing devices conducting a continuous aerial patrol.
If a drone flies over, do an immediate lockdown and scramble guards to secure all the prisoners and take the drone down.
You are suggesting removing the existing 'old' infrastructure where you can plan for things,
No I am not suggesting removing things... there will always be demand for traditional hotels and commercial transportation arrangements. These things will likely have a higher price, since services such as AirBnb and Uber will inexpensively service people who don't need pre-defined committed and guaranteed arrangements.
As the demand falls, some but not all players go out of business...... But entities like businesses still need guaranteed hotel rooms and transportation services, so there is still a market for them, just a much smaller more niche one.
to replace it with a host of 'disruptive' systems where everything is just-in-time and tied to demand, for the benefit of companies like Uber
No.... it is for the benefit of people actually. The presumption is services like Uber generally lower not increase costs, which is the entire point; the costs are lower by not having artificial scarcity. But meeting unpredictable demand is still a problem; it's even harder for Taxis, where the result of demand surge is just that you don't get a ride at all, so it's not like this is just an Uber problem.
Except it's probably NOT either (1) or (2), but both. It's probably (1), but Uber is keeping an additional or lion's share of the amount of the additional money (As much as it can, after figuring out the price elasticity of the market), and then sharing the additional fares with drivers (Probably a significant portion, BUT as little as they think is necessary to achieve the desired incentivizing affect).
Taxi drivers don't do this. Why should Uber?
Because paying more allows Uber to drive supply to meet that demand. If Uber drivers aren't paid anymore during high-demand times, then there is no incentive for more than normal drives to work during those times to meet the additional excess demand.
Because Taxi drivers are more like employees, and Uber drivers are essentially "independent contractors"
Taxi drivers get paid but have to meet daily targets, otherwise they get paid less, or lose it all. The driver don't collect more during high demand times, BUT even if they did: it's the dispatcher, not the driver that stands to profit.
Taxi drivers are also a regulated monopoly.
However, the Taxi drivers are incentivized since they can meet their daily target more quickly working in a high-demand area, then exceed it, and the profits will go up, and therefore, their commissions in dollars will increase.
Surge pricing is a good idea; the problem seems like the amount is too much.
So during a surge.... instead, warn would-be passengers about high demand and offer them the chance to place an additional payment to "bid" for the next ride as a prepaid fixed dollar kickback, not an increase in fare or not additional $$ per mile travelled, but a payment for increase in priority ---- with bid taken into account, as well as total time spent in the queue, when deciding who is next in line to be matched
The passengers will then have to wait, and the bid will be taken into account before matching up a driver with riders.
Then, instead of the driver actually receiving the bid --- the bids are pooled and distributed to the drivers fairly based on their percentage of fare dollars collected for passengers moved per mile driven within the surge area.
but they're not subsidizing your phone purchase anymore.
Then everyone should switch to ATT next time they need to upgrade their phone.
In fact, "crap in a storage unit" is probably one of the most secure, low cost way of storing backups
Except in a generic storage pod..... any random thief is one pair of bolt cutters away from raiding your unit for anything interesting, and insurance only covers the replacement cost of the media itself, not the data on it.
There are thousands of other possible reasons to shutdown that have nothing to do with security, for example: business not doing well enough to continue: poor market penetration, people not interested in their product, competition eating their lunch.
20 miles of highways and city streets are surrounded by barbed-wire fences.
No match for some remote-controlled drones with cameras and such.
then you'll just have more stations to compete with because you can fight for spectrum with people who are farther away.
Access points that endpoints connect to should be required be minimum power, minimum range, either that, OR providing public network access and equal treatment for all endpoints. Private network APs should be limited to doing dense coverage with APs about range about 50 feet.
We could use a protocol that allows fair access to the longer-range data channels and Only for endpoints that are making only a site-to-site connection with minimum threshold of distance away from each other, And no AP functionality utilizing the same radio.
So longer distances can be covered wirelessly, with minimal unnecessary contention.
I'm sensing that you have a policy of zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. Maybe it's time for a little leeway in this area.
Maybe he's just waiting for someone with a zero tolerance policy for people who have a zero tolerance policy toward people who have a zero tolerance policy toward zero tolerance policies?
disney or universal can give use of the characters or not based on solely on their wishes.
Unless the character is public domain or the usage is fair use / free speech.
Most places I've been at have a VERY strict policy of not talking to the media or representing the company in any way without permission
Companies can have a policy against talking to media ON BEHALF of the company. It wasn't clear from the summary if the person involved purported to be speaking on behalf of Nintendo or not. If not, then it is possible that Nintendo could be in legal trouble for their actions in that case.
A policy of not communicating at all with the media or in public such as on Facebook, Youtube, blog posts, etc (especially about matters such as conditions of work, salary, etc) would be an unlawful policy, since it would interfere with labor rights regarding protected concerted activities that have protected status under federal law.
Just having published policy itself that intimidates against exercise of protected rights is a violation of the law, and enforcing an unlawful policy is itself unlawful.
The employee's lawyers could potentially have a field day with that, if an unlawful policy such as "Never talk to the media" were being enforced, even if the actual activity involved with the firing wasn't protected activity
Robotic lawnmowers have been around since the 60s
Also, from 2012 on there has been some popularity.
I'm guessing iRobot's claimed innovation is you aren't going to have to bury a wire around the perimeter of your yard anymore?
It doesn't sound like a very interesting improvement to me. If a robotic mower will do it for you, then putting down the wire doesn't seem like much cost.
The real problem at least around here, is the yards are not even at all.... there are lots of little dirt hills and muddy soil depressions.. place where drainage is poor, etc.
Shrubs and little patches of garden, and small plants all over the place that cannot be mowed.
It's kind of tough for a human to take care of it, having to dodge dozens of little obstacles, let alone a robot.
Summer peak electrical usage is for air conditioning because of THE HOT SUN.
Except when it's raining. Or in freezing temperatures, when peak usage is to heat buildings after dark.
There should be a class-action lawsuit from all content creators affected against the DMCA letter spewing company AND the studio who hired them for gross-negligence And copyright abuse.
They should seek to have creator's copyright interest in the new film struck down by the courts.