Hell, leave Guantanamo Bay open for all I care. I want the wrongdoing to stop. That means due process and fair trials, human and civil rights, and preservation of the rights of the accused and the rights of the suspected. You know, principles this country was supposedly founded on.
I mean, do you even know what countries your emails might route through between sending and arriving at their destination? If you're going to go to a server in a different country to gain the benefit of their better privacy laws, you're likely going to need to transfer data over networks that geographically reside in other countries too. And your end points probably are still somewhere within your own country. What are the laws like there?
Email is inherently insecure, since it is transmitted in clear text and stored in multiple hops between destination and recipient, where its contents may be intercepted, altered, copied, stored, etc.. If you're relying on the law to keep your email private, you've already lost. Use digital signatures for authenticity and integrity, and strong encryption for confidentiality. At that point, you really don't need the law's help to keep your emails private.
Fuck you, Nokia. You're rapidly falling behind and becoming irrelevant. Your handset hardware is pretty nice, but the software is sorely lacking. You're very last decade at this point.
What with the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan, the bombing of yet another country, and all else that is wrong with the world right now, this delay helps comfort me and feel like there are some things that we can always count on. Bless you, DNF team.
No, free speech is free speech. The constitutional protections of free speech are applicable to the government.
There is still plenty of sound argument and valid reasoning to want to have free speech that is protected from the actions of individuals and corporations.
In the real world, this becomes difficult or impossible to enforce. Hence the saying that free speech is not without consequences.
Nevertheless, it is in the interests of the people to advocate for a broad reaching, maximized freedom of speech, subject to practical limits of enforcement, and reason (let's avoid stupid logical paradoxes and fallacies in the pursuit of freest speech). There's some wiggle room for weasels in the concept of "practical limits" but clearly the guiding principle should be that the limits on speech should be kept as minimal as possible.
Corporate censorship may not be illegal, but it is still wrong and the good and righteous still ought to fight the good fight against it.
Tesla was the one who advocated for AC power. Edison was the one who argued for DC as the safer choice, and publicly electrocuted horses and other animals using AC to show how unsafe it was.
Having witnessed this type of behavior across myriad companies and industries, I can say the rebuild/clone/redeploy approach is used NOT because of "pressure to get more bang for their bucks" - it's that it is inherently easier to do this approach than to deep-dive perhaps for days to find The Answer(tm). In an environment of thousands of servers (or even dozens), deep-diving into a problem [generally] is a waste of time. While it is interesting intellectually, there is no other benefit.
I'd disagree with "there is no other benefit."
Off the top of my head, there are at least two benefits:
1) Finding and fixing the problem once and for all prevents the problem from recurring and/or cascading. Even if you can fix the problem by re-imaging the system, and this costs very little in labor (you kick of a script and wait) there are still costs associated with re-imaging, primarily the system downtime incurred. How often are you re-imaging? If it gets to be frequent enough, fixing the root cause of the problem is quite possibly cheaper in the long run. 2) Oftentimes these deeper problems may have security implications, which are better to fix than leave latent.
Whether the benefits are worth the expense (time and resources) to realize them, or whether the same time and resources could bring better benefit if directed elsewhere is the real question; it's not that diving deep and fixing root cause problems in systems lacks any benefit beyond that it's intellectually interesting.
Malicious hacker No. 5: Hacktivists Lots of hackers are motivated by political, religious, environmental, or other personal beliefs. They are usually content with embarrassing their opponents or defacing their websites, although they can slip into corporate-espionage mode if it means they can weaken the opponent. Think WikiLeaks.
I'll grant that Wikileaks are activists. I'll also grant that they have some great hackers working for them. But what the article describes as "hacktivism" is not what wikileaks does. Wikileaks employs hackers defensively, to provide a secure system that guarantees anonymity for the sources who leak information to them.
Although there have been allegations made in the press by people who probably don't know anything about information security, I have seen no evidence that suggests that Wikileaks obtains information by cracking into systems. On the contrary, Wikileaks have always claimed to work by receiving information from sources who were privileged with access to the information, and who elected to leak it to Wikileaks out of duty to their conscience.
There has been, to date, no evidence brought forward which suggests that Wikileaks has ever broken into a system to extract information out of it. That isn't the way they do things.
There are "hacktivists" who do things like deface websites in order to publicize a cause, or DDoS attack some target that they disagree with. But that is not what Wikileaks does, either. Misguided sympathizers from "Anonymous" may have done some of these things in an attempt to aid Wikileaks, but that is still not something that Wikileaks does or endorses.
Well, it is kindof true. Google is very big brother in the way they gather data about their users.
For that matter, just about any large internet company is going to be in bed with whatever governments whose jurisdiction they operate within. It's called "compliance with law enforcement". It's very patriotic for corporations to work with governments. Of course, if you have nothing to hide, it's fine, right?
The other reason Beck might hate the internet, of course, is that the internet is just an outgrowth of yet another giant government project. We all remember ARPA and DARPA, right?
Slashdot Mirror
As always, this perceived shortcoming is actually a feature of Windows, not a bug.
1. Take the money.
2. Hire someone else to do it.
3. Charge the company 2x what you're paying that guy. (PROFIT!)
Hell, leave Guantanamo Bay open for all I care. I want the wrongdoing to stop. That means due process and fair trials, human and civil rights, and preservation of the rights of the accused and the rights of the suspected. You know, principles this country was supposedly founded on.
has resulted a casualty figure that is lower than what is seen in a day in Libya
There's a slogan for you: Nuclear energy: It's safer than an entire country deliberately trying to kill its own people!
I mean, do you even know what countries your emails might route through between sending and arriving at their destination? If you're going to go to a server in a different country to gain the benefit of their better privacy laws, you're likely going to need to transfer data over networks that geographically reside in other countries too. And your end points probably are still somewhere within your own country. What are the laws like there?
Email is inherently insecure, since it is transmitted in clear text and stored in multiple hops between destination and recipient, where its contents may be intercepted, altered, copied, stored, etc.. If you're relying on the law to keep your email private, you've already lost. Use digital signatures for authenticity and integrity, and strong encryption for confidentiality. At that point, you really don't need the law's help to keep your emails private.
Fuck you, Nokia. You're rapidly falling behind and becoming irrelevant. Your handset hardware is pretty nice, but the software is sorely lacking. You're very last decade at this point.
If you think it's too pricey for mass storage, just pretend that it's 2005.
Thought the headline said "Turning your E-Reader into a Cheap Toilet" at first. LOLed.
What with the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan, the bombing of yet another country, and all else that is wrong with the world right now, this delay helps comfort me and feel like there are some things that we can always count on. Bless you, DNF team.
"Free Speech" only applies TO THE GOVERNMENT.
No, free speech is free speech. The constitutional protections of free speech are applicable to the government.
There is still plenty of sound argument and valid reasoning to want to have free speech that is protected from the actions of individuals and corporations.
In the real world, this becomes difficult or impossible to enforce. Hence the saying that free speech is not without consequences.
Nevertheless, it is in the interests of the people to advocate for a broad reaching, maximized freedom of speech, subject to practical limits of enforcement, and reason (let's avoid stupid logical paradoxes and fallacies in the pursuit of freest speech). There's some wiggle room for weasels in the concept of "practical limits" but clearly the guiding principle should be that the limits on speech should be kept as minimal as possible.
Corporate censorship may not be illegal, but it is still wrong and the good and righteous still ought to fight the good fight against it.
Threat: A guy who doesn't like you
Vulnerability: Getting kicked in the nuts really hurts.
When a Threat finds a Vulnerability, and exploits it, that's when you have a problem.
I read that as "I'm... SORRY... that... you... PERCEIVED... me? as... BEING... selfish... or... hostile? to... YOU... back then."
Here's my FF4 upgrade plan:
If I decide to roll back:
Tesla was the one who advocated for AC power. Edison was the one who argued for DC as the safer choice, and publicly electrocuted horses and other animals using AC to show how unsafe it was.
Willis tower?
I hope Leonard Nimoy gets a cameo in the movie, and a reprise musical number. He'd make a great elf, with the pointy ears and all.
It seems like a perfectly cromulent word to me.
Libraries do not have enough legal expenses already, and have ample over-budget to support this initiative.
Having witnessed this type of behavior across myriad companies and industries, I can say the rebuild/clone/redeploy approach is used NOT because of "pressure to get more bang for their bucks" - it's that it is inherently easier to do this approach than to deep-dive perhaps for days to find The Answer(tm). In an environment of thousands of servers (or even dozens), deep-diving into a problem [generally] is a waste of time. While it is interesting intellectually, there is no other benefit.
I'd disagree with "there is no other benefit."
Off the top of my head, there are at least two benefits:
1) Finding and fixing the problem once and for all prevents the problem from recurring and/or cascading. Even if you can fix the problem by re-imaging the system, and this costs very little in labor (you kick of a script and wait) there are still costs associated with re-imaging, primarily the system downtime incurred. How often are you re-imaging? If it gets to be frequent enough, fixing the root cause of the problem is quite possibly cheaper in the long run.
2) Oftentimes these deeper problems may have security implications, which are better to fix than leave latent.
Whether the benefits are worth the expense (time and resources) to realize them, or whether the same time and resources could bring better benefit if directed elsewhere is the real question; it's not that diving deep and fixing root cause problems in systems lacks any benefit beyond that it's intellectually interesting.
Microsoft: Here's how you can work with open source developers:
1. Hire some developers.
2. Let them write some code.
3. Release it under an open source license.
Alternately:
1. Hire some developers
2. Pay them to work on improving an existing open source project.
Or even:
1. Fund a group of independent developer foundation (eg Mozilla) who are working on an open source project.
Bob Loblaw.
You should learn sed. It wouldn't take longer than a minute to generate that.
From the article:
I'll grant that Wikileaks are activists. I'll also grant that they have some great hackers working for them. But what the article describes as "hacktivism" is not what wikileaks does. Wikileaks employs hackers defensively, to provide a secure system that guarantees anonymity for the sources who leak information to them.
Although there have been allegations made in the press by people who probably don't know anything about information security, I have seen no evidence that suggests that Wikileaks obtains information by cracking into systems. On the contrary, Wikileaks have always claimed to work by receiving information from sources who were privileged with access to the information, and who elected to leak it to Wikileaks out of duty to their conscience.
There has been, to date, no evidence brought forward which suggests that Wikileaks has ever broken into a system to extract information out of it. That isn't the way they do things.
There are "hacktivists" who do things like deface websites in order to publicize a cause, or DDoS attack some target that they disagree with. But that is not what Wikileaks does, either. Misguided sympathizers from "Anonymous" may have done some of these things in an attempt to aid Wikileaks, but that is still not something that Wikileaks does or endorses.
Well, it is kindof true. Google is very big brother in the way they gather data about their users.
For that matter, just about any large internet company is going to be in bed with whatever governments whose jurisdiction they operate within. It's called "compliance with law enforcement". It's very patriotic for corporations to work with governments. Of course, if you have nothing to hide, it's fine, right?
The other reason Beck might hate the internet, of course, is that the internet is just an outgrowth of yet another giant government project. We all remember ARPA and DARPA, right?