While I personally don't five a flying fuck about swearing in source code and can't really see how it could be an issue when using the JDK in a "professional" environment, you are massively over-reacting.
If the source contained stuff like personal attacks, doxing, or giant ASCII penises that stuff would probably be removed for what are hopefully obvious reasons. So clearly there are already some standards in place that have been widely enforced for as long as modern English has existed, and didn't cause any problems.
Not to mention the absurdity of not wanting a few widely recognized impolite words that have been banned in many areas such as pre-watershed TV forever being equated to the fall of civilisation into fascism or whatever it was you were alluding to.
It's very hard to have a reasonable discussion about this when the first post is such an extreme over-reaction.
Looking at the list it does seem a bit much. conservative-headlines.com is just a bunch of links to shitty YouTube channels. Hamas.ps doesn't look particularly bad either, probably no worse than typical western political/military hero memorial sites.
Seems like the legal bar needs to be set much higher.
Have you ever tried business class? I got a free upgrade once and it was quite incredible how different it was. The lounge had a great buffet with hot food, decent showers with all the towels and stuff provided. Didn't have to wait in line with the plebs either, they have a business class VIP security gate. Oh, and none of this "turn up at least two hours before you flight" stuff either, more like 30 minutes before because the business class baggage drop is fully staffed.
I later found out that you can often buy access to just the lounge for relatively little money. In China it was about 10 Euro. Of course the lounge wasn't as nice in China but still worth it.
Concorde was around £8,300 for a return ticket. Standard 8.5 hour business class flights are around £1,500 to £5,000 depending on flight time and airline. Naturally Concorde got you the most convenient time slots, but on the normal business class you get a lie-flat seat, basically a little bed.
So yeah, I guess very few people were looking at it to try to save some money. Probably just rich people and CEOs who don't want to spend 9 hours on a plane.
Kinda ironic that people think Google doesn't care about privacy.
They care a lot about keeping your personal data private, because (with your permission to use it, at least in the EU) their advertising business's value is largely based on it.
More over, most of the evil shit that people assume Google is doing is nonsense and actually illegal in many places. Presumably they also think there is a giant criminal conspiracy that has so far gone undetected (but somehow they are certain it exists).
U2F keys defeat this kind of attack. The browser passes the URL of the site requesting the code to the key, and the key checks if it is one that it has a time-based password for. Since any fake log-in page will almost certainly not be served from google.com that is a very effective protection.
Google actually had a feature that would have negated this attack, but disabled it a while back. Google would download external images to their own server, and then re-write the HTML in to use their cache. That way external images couldn't be used to track or detect when users read an email.
I seem to recall it caused some problems and eventually had to be disabled.
That's pretty much what the standards are. They require all patents relating to the standard to be offered under "RAND" (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) terms, meaning typically a simple per-device royalty.
Apple has two problems with this. Firstly, often instead of a royalty the manufacturer has their own patents that they offer in exchange and no money changes hands. Apple doesn't have any patents to trade, all theirs are design stuff like rounded corners and UI elements, not the kind of thing that a modem manufacturer might be interested in.
Secondly Apple gave Qualcomm's trade secrets to Intel, to help Intel improve their modems. Apple likes having multiple suppliers for every part as it gives them a better bargaining position and prevents production stoppages if one can't meet demand. Unfortunately not all parts are equal, so Apple software limits the modem speed to the lowest common denominator, in this case Intel. Apparently their engineers gave Intel some hints based on what Qualcomm told them and the ITC seems to agree.
Ebay used to be people selling stuff they didn't want any more.
About a decade ago it mostly switched to a marketplace for merchants. Some used stuff, a lot of of brand new stuff. A lot of it from China. They changed the rules around that time to make the feedback system a lot harsher and shift the balance in the buyer's favour.
The issue here is that Qualcomm says Apple gave some of it's secrets to Intel, to help Intel make better modems for the iPhone. Even if the patents covering 4G are available for everyone to use (which they are under RAND terms, basically everyone gets to licence them for a nominal fee or in exchange for licencing their own patents) that doesn't meant Apple can give away trade secrets that help the Qualcomm parts perform better.
Japanese people aren't generally familiar with feet, yards and other Imperial measures, but they do use some non-metric units.
Some screen sizes are given in inches, although TVs seem mostly to be centimetres. Things like phones are often in inches. Room sizes are typically give in the number of tatame mats that will fit, although east and west Japan have different size mats. In historical dramas they often talk about "ri", which is a pre-metric unit of measurement.
The most frustrating thing is that they let dodgy sellers use the good reputation of the genuine ones.
Phone batteries are a great example. The listing says "genuine" and there are lots of 5 star reviews, but because of the way Amazon works another seller can come along and take over that listing with a lower priced knock-off, and lots of people will end up buying it based on the reports that the old one is genuine and works well.
It's certainly more tricky if their jobs are related to social media. Sargon, being a British citizen, could file a GDPR request to get some more information perhaps. GDPR does require them to explain certain things and show what data they have.
Okay, so you were just expressing general outrage at their shunning for thoughtcrime, fair enough.
As for the public space argument, it could get very messy when other countries decide they want the same thing. Also, the public space argument probably wouldn't help people like Sargon because their Twitter bans were for stuff that would get you ejected from privately owned public spaces too, i.e. not expressing a political opinion but harassment. In fact if it happened in real life someone would probably call the cops.
Okay, so what exactly did you mean by calling it "thought crime"?
And yes I see that you are complaining that Patreon didn't give you sufficient explanation of their actions. I mostly agree for services like Patreon that become people's livelihoods. There are employment issues. For stuff like Twitter not so much, all it would do is help trolls and their supporters would just keep arguing it anyway.
The educational versions of all those apps don't collect data. It's part of the deal, necessary to get into schools, and a legal requirement for minors to use them in many jurisdictions.
I wouldn't buy a used hammer. What possible reason could someone have for returning it other than it was defective? Maybe the seller repaired it... But I have little trust in them unless they were the manufacturer. Don't need a hammer head flying off and cracking my skull open.
This is the point at which I always ask the same question and never get a straight answer.
Milo condones paedophilia. It's on tape, he doesn't deny it, stands by his words. Other people hear what he said and no longer wish to associate themselves with him.
You call this thought crime. Okay. But how do you preserve other people's freedom to criticise his statement, their freedom to disassociate themselves with him, and their freedom to hold the opinion that he is a bad person?
You are objecting to the consequences of his actions, but I can't see any way in which there can be no consequences without forcing other people to do or say or not say things against their will.
Under what circumstances would you want to change your iris? Your attacker makes a copy of your iris that is good enough to fool your phone into unlocking? Then your opponent is not your younger brother or an opportunistic thief, and you picked the wrong authentication method.
If you are using biometrics as the only authentication factor in some critical application then you are doing it wrong. If you are just using it to stop your "friends" shitposting on your Facebook timeline then you are probably okay.
Biometrics are better than nothing. In this case the attacker needs to scan your head and 3D print an actual-size model of it, so it's still better than a simple pattern unlock or nothing.
It's all about understanding and evaluating the threat. Facial recognition is a cheap, fast and moderately secure system that will keep your friends and siblings and random thieves out.
People who need real security on their phones use proper passwords.
* Used to be hip, no dull corporate - check * Lack of innovation since their one-trick pony - check
Well neither of those are true. Microsoft was never hip, and Google has kept producing lots of innovative stuff (Maps/Street View, Android, Gmail, Chrome, computational photography etc.)
There is a lot wrong with Google, but the similarities only go so far.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh man, you are gonna hate the classic stuff. The latest series is a return to the classic formula.
While I personally don't five a flying fuck about swearing in source code and can't really see how it could be an issue when using the JDK in a "professional" environment, you are massively over-reacting.
If the source contained stuff like personal attacks, doxing, or giant ASCII penises that stuff would probably be removed for what are hopefully obvious reasons. So clearly there are already some standards in place that have been widely enforced for as long as modern English has existed, and didn't cause any problems.
Not to mention the absurdity of not wanting a few widely recognized impolite words that have been banned in many areas such as pre-watershed TV forever being equated to the fall of civilisation into fascism or whatever it was you were alluding to.
It's very hard to have a reasonable discussion about this when the first post is such an extreme over-reaction.
Looking at the list it does seem a bit much. conservative-headlines.com is just a bunch of links to shitty YouTube channels. Hamas.ps doesn't look particularly bad either, probably no worse than typical western political/military hero memorial sites.
Seems like the legal bar needs to be set much higher.
Of more concern would be the extremely large magnetic containment fields or the very high power systems needed to generate them.
Have you ever tried business class? I got a free upgrade once and it was quite incredible how different it was. The lounge had a great buffet with hot food, decent showers with all the towels and stuff provided. Didn't have to wait in line with the plebs either, they have a business class VIP security gate. Oh, and none of this "turn up at least two hours before you flight" stuff either, more like 30 minutes before because the business class baggage drop is fully staffed.
I later found out that you can often buy access to just the lounge for relatively little money. In China it was about 10 Euro. Of course the lounge wasn't as nice in China but still worth it.
Concorde was around £8,300 for a return ticket. Standard 8.5 hour business class flights are around £1,500 to £5,000 depending on flight time and airline. Naturally Concorde got you the most convenient time slots, but on the normal business class you get a lie-flat seat, basically a little bed.
So yeah, I guess very few people were looking at it to try to save some money. Probably just rich people and CEOs who don't want to spend 9 hours on a plane.
I had a car like that once.
Kinda ironic that people think Google doesn't care about privacy.
They care a lot about keeping your personal data private, because (with your permission to use it, at least in the EU) their advertising business's value is largely based on it.
More over, most of the evil shit that people assume Google is doing is nonsense and actually illegal in many places. Presumably they also think there is a giant criminal conspiracy that has so far gone undetected (but somehow they are certain it exists).
U2F keys defeat this kind of attack. The browser passes the URL of the site requesting the code to the key, and the key checks if it is one that it has a time-based password for. Since any fake log-in page will almost certainly not be served from google.com that is a very effective protection.
Google actually had a feature that would have negated this attack, but disabled it a while back. Google would download external images to their own server, and then re-write the HTML in to use their cache. That way external images couldn't be used to track or detect when users read an email.
I seem to recall it caused some problems and eventually had to be disabled.
That's pretty much what the standards are. They require all patents relating to the standard to be offered under "RAND" (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) terms, meaning typically a simple per-device royalty.
Apple has two problems with this. Firstly, often instead of a royalty the manufacturer has their own patents that they offer in exchange and no money changes hands. Apple doesn't have any patents to trade, all theirs are design stuff like rounded corners and UI elements, not the kind of thing that a modem manufacturer might be interested in.
Secondly Apple gave Qualcomm's trade secrets to Intel, to help Intel improve their modems. Apple likes having multiple suppliers for every part as it gives them a better bargaining position and prevents production stoppages if one can't meet demand. Unfortunately not all parts are equal, so Apple software limits the modem speed to the lowest common denominator, in this case Intel. Apparently their engineers gave Intel some hints based on what Qualcomm told them and the ITC seems to agree.
The second part is why China is banning iPhones.
Ebay used to be people selling stuff they didn't want any more.
About a decade ago it mostly switched to a marketplace for merchants. Some used stuff, a lot of of brand new stuff. A lot of it from China. They changed the rules around that time to make the feedback system a lot harsher and shift the balance in the buyer's favour.
The issue here is that Qualcomm says Apple gave some of it's secrets to Intel, to help Intel make better modems for the iPhone. Even if the patents covering 4G are available for everyone to use (which they are under RAND terms, basically everyone gets to licence them for a nominal fee or in exchange for licencing their own patents) that doesn't meant Apple can give away trade secrets that help the Qualcomm parts perform better.
Japanese people aren't generally familiar with feet, yards and other Imperial measures, but they do use some non-metric units.
Some screen sizes are given in inches, although TVs seem mostly to be centimetres. Things like phones are often in inches. Room sizes are typically give in the number of tatame mats that will fit, although east and west Japan have different size mats. In historical dramas they often talk about "ri", which is a pre-metric unit of measurement.
But not feet.
The most frustrating thing is that they let dodgy sellers use the good reputation of the genuine ones.
Phone batteries are a great example. The listing says "genuine" and there are lots of 5 star reviews, but because of the way Amazon works another seller can come along and take over that listing with a lower priced knock-off, and lots of people will end up buying it based on the reports that the old one is genuine and works well.
It's certainly more tricky if their jobs are related to social media. Sargon, being a British citizen, could file a GDPR request to get some more information perhaps. GDPR does require them to explain certain things and show what data they have.
Okay, so you were just expressing general outrage at their shunning for thoughtcrime, fair enough.
As for the public space argument, it could get very messy when other countries decide they want the same thing. Also, the public space argument probably wouldn't help people like Sargon because their Twitter bans were for stuff that would get you ejected from privately owned public spaces too, i.e. not expressing a political opinion but harassment. In fact if it happened in real life someone would probably call the cops.
I guess it depends if you believe they made a mistake, or perhaps if you think making a mistake makes them evil.
Rather than argue about their unknowable motivations, do you have any hard proof of intent?
Okay, so what exactly did you mean by calling it "thought crime"?
And yes I see that you are complaining that Patreon didn't give you sufficient explanation of their actions. I mostly agree for services like Patreon that become people's livelihoods. There are employment issues. For stuff like Twitter not so much, all it would do is help trolls and their supporters would just keep arguing it anyway.
The educational versions of all those apps don't collect data. It's part of the deal, necessary to get into schools, and a legal requirement for minors to use them in many jurisdictions.
I wouldn't buy a used hammer. What possible reason could someone have for returning it other than it was defective? Maybe the seller repaired it... But I have little trust in them unless they were the manufacturer. Don't need a hammer head flying off and cracking my skull open.
we called what both of them did thought crimes
This is the point at which I always ask the same question and never get a straight answer.
Milo condones paedophilia. It's on tape, he doesn't deny it, stands by his words. Other people hear what he said and no longer wish to associate themselves with him.
You call this thought crime. Okay. But how do you preserve other people's freedom to criticise his statement, their freedom to disassociate themselves with him, and their freedom to hold the opinion that he is a bad person?
You are objecting to the consequences of his actions, but I can't see any way in which there can be no consequences without forcing other people to do or say or not say things against their will.
So please explain your position.
Aaand you miss the point... again.
Under what circumstances would you want to change your iris? Your attacker makes a copy of your iris that is good enough to fool your phone into unlocking? Then your opponent is not your younger brother or an opportunistic thief, and you picked the wrong authentication method.
If you are using biometrics as the only authentication factor in some critical application then you are doing it wrong. If you are just using it to stop your "friends" shitposting on your Facebook timeline then you are probably okay.
If I were worried about a court being able to demand I unlock my phone I'd use more than 4 digits. Much more.
Biometrics are better than nothing. In this case the attacker needs to scan your head and 3D print an actual-size model of it, so it's still better than a simple pattern unlock or nothing.
It's all about understanding and evaluating the threat. Facial recognition is a cheap, fast and moderately secure system that will keep your friends and siblings and random thieves out.
People who need real security on their phones use proper passwords.
* Used to be hip, no dull corporate - check
* Lack of innovation since their one-trick pony - check
Well neither of those are true. Microsoft was never hip, and Google has kept producing lots of innovative stuff (Maps/Street View, Android, Gmail, Chrome, computational photography etc.)
There is a lot wrong with Google, but the similarities only go so far.