Failing to agree to the EULA is a sure way to lose. A losing tragedy.
Or losing strategy.
Microsoft can simply rewrite the EULA such that you give Microsoft permission to agree to the EULA for you. Microsoft will agree to the EULA for you, and you are then bound. Naturally, you would take this to court and sue. Then Microsoft would show that the EULA has a binding arbitration clause. Lazy courts would see this as a way out of having to do anything at all and send it off to arbitration where Microsoft has already pre-stacked the deck against you.
But don't worry, some court will force Microsoft will force Microsoft to stop putting up these Windows 10 Upgrade nagging prompts. At that point, Microsoft will interpret the court order in the most natural way -- which is that you want the upgrade (after all, who wouldn't?) -- and will just begin the upgrade for you. For your convenience Microsoft will agree to the EULA for you.
And who wouldn't agree to volunteer to give Microsoft total and continuous access to your webcam, microphone, etc. It's for your safety, of course.
But it is a complicated issue. Sort of how Slavery and Indentured Servitude are complicated issues. While we don't want slavery, it is important that unemployed poor people be allowed to work for rich and powerful people*. Net neutrality and getting the internet to poor people is similarly complex.
The major drawback of installing these lights into the pavement, at every intersection, aside from the cost of doing so, is that it reduces the number of candidates for each year's Darwin Awards.
A question I would ponder is do people who cannot protect their own lives due to phone addiction, do they actually contribute anything of value to society?
We should be commending the US Government, who is leading by example, practicing what they preach, that everything should be less secure. The poorly named "intelligence" community regularly complains that everything must be made insecure. The growing number of secure software systems has a name. It's called "going dark". The government needs to ensure that things do not go dark. Therefore insecure systems should be preferred over secure systems.
You can't have it both ways. It's a binary choice. Systems are secure, or they are insecure. I am referring to the intent here. A system is intended to be secure, or it is intended to be insecure. An intention to be secure does not, itself, guarantee security. But an intention to be insecure does guarantee insecurity.
The government sees insecurity as a desirable norm.
Everyone else, for some reason, sees security as a desirable norm. This contrary view cannot be allowed to stand. /s
Folks have to understand that, and figure out how they are going to deal with that. Do they want the public to bear those costs? Do they want the victims of terrorism to bear those costs?"
I just did some googling. Apparently the number of people who die by terrorism from now back to 2001 is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people who day every year from automobile accidents, mostly caused by allowing cars to be driven by error prone, inferior, humans.
Maybe a better use of our tax dollars would be a new 'Manhattan Project' or "Moon Shot' project. Replace the 'War On Terror' with a real 'War On Human Driven Cars'. Self driving cars for everyone. That would save vastly more lives than would ever be saved by allowing the FBI snoops to break into every phone, any where, any time, and without any kind of supervision. That is what this is really about.
SCO was ordered by the court THREE TIMES to show their source code to the court. That is a different thing than a PR dog and pony show. SCO whined. Stalled. The court had to order them three times.
Eventually the court give SCO a third and final deadline. Dec 22, 2005. Disclose ALL allegedly misused materials in Linux by then.
What did we get? A lot of hand waving and nonsense. Nothing substantial.
After months more arguing, the court tossed out 2/3 of that. Of the remaining 1/3, the magistrate judge (Wells) was quite skeptical. But technically it wasn't crazy enough to throw out with the other 2/3, so SCO could keep it, although they probably wouldn't get anything out of it.
A side show in this matter was that SCO did not own any copyright in Unix in the first place. Years later, by 2007, the court finally concluded that SCO didn't even own any copyright in Unix. So they have no standing to sue in the first place. (eg, I can't sue you for stealing Jane's tires. Only Jane has standing to sue you for that.)
There are many more facets to this entire fiaSCO. And none of them are good for the SCOundrels.
On the Friday before SCO's scheduled trial to start on Monday in Sept 2007, where after years of saying they wanted to get their day in court, SCO declared bankruptcy. On the eve of the trial that would give them their supposed victory. And SCO was still financially solvent.
Everything about this entire farce stinks to high heaven.
I don't want them to lock out alternative firmware. What I want is that it should not be possible to install any unrecognized third party firmware unless I affirmatively authorize its installation, with the clear understanding that it is not from the manufacturer.
You forgot the step of sending the encryption key to the mother ship. That only takes a small packet or two. In fact, encryption keys could be batched together and sent to the mother ship when the phone regularly interacts with the mother ship to check for updates, etc.
What do you mean GO BACK to telnet? Juniper still uses telnet. TFA (the friendly article) says . . .
"The announcement comes just shy of a month after Juniper said it had found unauthorized code in ScreenOS that allowed for the decryption of NetScreen firewall traffic and a second issue that allowed for remote unauthorized access to NetScreen appliances via SSH or telnet."
Stop preloading crap that I don't want and didn't ask for.
If for some inconceivable reason I wanted the Facebook app, I can find it and download it quite easily. After that, it every time I upgrade my device, I will automatically have that app pre-installed. If you must pre install it to avoid tech support questions, then at least make the God forsaken thing un-installable!
I have nothing against Uber, but if I wanted their app, I would install it.
Maybe you should pre-install a computer algebra system app? (CAS) Since I use it, I would tend to believe that everyone would be interested in such an app!
In classic government oxymoronic style. Governments are full of oxymorons.
Some government "adult male" in their "arrogant humility" engaged in "a just war" wants us to "agree to disagree" to introduce "astronomically small" insecurities into our "insecurely secure" systems so that "military intelligence" can "read unreadable" messages.
. . . where the speaker compared the two approaches like this:
Gradually trying to move towards driverless cars instead of working directly on that goal is like thinking that by practicing jumping and getting better and better a jumping that you'll eventually be able to fly.
That's the problem with FireOS. Everything about it is designed to sell you something. Constantly. I would happily pay much more for a tablet which improves my life rather than constantly trying to sell me something. Oh, like the tablet that I already have.
Slashdot Mirror
You are misquoting. What Captain Kirk actually said was:
Kaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhnnnnn!!!!
Failing to agree to the EULA is a sure way to lose. A losing tragedy.
Or losing strategy.
Microsoft can simply rewrite the EULA such that you give Microsoft permission to agree to the EULA for you. Microsoft will agree to the EULA for you, and you are then bound. Naturally, you would take this to court and sue. Then Microsoft would show that the EULA has a binding arbitration clause. Lazy courts would see this as a way out of having to do anything at all and send it off to arbitration where Microsoft has already pre-stacked the deck against you.
But don't worry, some court will force Microsoft will force Microsoft to stop putting up these Windows 10 Upgrade nagging prompts. At that point, Microsoft will interpret the court order in the most natural way -- which is that you want the upgrade (after all, who wouldn't?) -- and will just begin the upgrade for you. For your convenience Microsoft will agree to the EULA for you.
And who wouldn't agree to volunteer to give Microsoft total and continuous access to your webcam, microphone, etc. It's for your safety, of course.
But it is a complicated issue. Sort of how Slavery and Indentured Servitude are complicated issues. While we don't want slavery, it is important that unemployed poor people be allowed to work for rich and powerful people*. Net neutrality and getting the internet to poor people is similarly complex.
/s
* corporations are people too
The major drawback of installing these lights into the pavement, at every intersection, aside from the cost of doing so, is that it reduces the number of candidates for each year's Darwin Awards.
A question I would ponder is do people who cannot protect their own lives due to phone addiction, do they actually contribute anything of value to society?
We should be commending the US Government, who is leading by example, practicing what they preach, that everything should be less secure. The poorly named "intelligence" community regularly complains that everything must be made insecure. The growing number of secure software systems has a name. It's called "going dark". The government needs to ensure that things do not go dark. Therefore insecure systems should be preferred over secure systems.
/s
You can't have it both ways. It's a binary choice. Systems are secure, or they are insecure. I am referring to the intent here. A system is intended to be secure, or it is intended to be insecure. An intention to be secure does not, itself, guarantee security. But an intention to be insecure does guarantee insecurity.
The government sees insecurity as a desirable norm.
Everyone else, for some reason, sees security as a desirable norm. This contrary view cannot be allowed to stand.
I just did some googling. Apparently the number of people who die by terrorism from now back to 2001 is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people who day every year from automobile accidents, mostly caused by allowing cars to be driven by error prone, inferior, humans.
Maybe a better use of our tax dollars would be a new 'Manhattan Project' or "Moon Shot' project. Replace the 'War On Terror' with a real 'War On Human Driven Cars'. Self driving cars for everyone. That would save vastly more lives than would ever be saved by allowing the FBI snoops to break into every phone, any where, any time, and without any kind of supervision. That is what this is really about.
SCO was ordered by the court THREE TIMES to show their source code to the court. That is a different thing than a PR dog and pony show. SCO whined. Stalled. The court had to order them three times.
Eventually the court give SCO a third and final deadline. Dec 22, 2005. Disclose ALL allegedly misused materials in Linux by then.
What did we get? A lot of hand waving and nonsense. Nothing substantial.
After months more arguing, the court tossed out 2/3 of that. Of the remaining 1/3, the magistrate judge (Wells) was quite skeptical. But technically it wasn't crazy enough to throw out with the other 2/3, so SCO could keep it, although they probably wouldn't get anything out of it.
A side show in this matter was that SCO did not own any copyright in Unix in the first place. Years later, by 2007, the court finally concluded that SCO didn't even own any copyright in Unix. So they have no standing to sue in the first place. (eg, I can't sue you for stealing Jane's tires. Only Jane has standing to sue you for that.)
There are many more facets to this entire fiaSCO. And none of them are good for the SCOundrels.
On the Friday before SCO's scheduled trial to start on Monday in Sept 2007, where after years of saying they wanted to get their day in court, SCO declared bankruptcy. On the eve of the trial that would give them their supposed victory. And SCO was still financially solvent.
Everything about this entire farce stinks to high heaven.
I don't want them to lock out alternative firmware. What I want is that it should not be possible to install any unrecognized third party firmware unless I affirmatively authorize its installation, with the clear understanding that it is not from the manufacturer.
The same thing that makes me think that anything written in C would never have this type of vulnerability.
You forgot the step of sending the encryption key to the mother ship. That only takes a small packet or two. In fact, encryption keys could be batched together and sent to the mother ship when the phone regularly interacts with the mother ship to check for updates, etc.
All the other firewalls are safe. Trust the NSA. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Hey, check out one of the new reality tv shows.
What do you mean GO BACK to telnet? Juniper still uses telnet. TFA (the friendly article) says . . .
"The announcement comes just shy of a month after Juniper said it had found unauthorized code in ScreenOS that allowed for the decryption of NetScreen firewall traffic and a second issue that allowed for remote unauthorized access to NetScreen appliances via SSH or telnet."
Tape is fascinating because it is used to fascinate things together. The large variety of tapes means there is a tape for every porpoise.
Stop preloading crap that I don't want and didn't ask for.
If for some inconceivable reason I wanted the Facebook app, I can find it and download it quite easily. After that, it every time I upgrade my device, I will automatically have that app pre-installed. If you must pre install it to avoid tech support questions, then at least make the God forsaken thing un-installable!
I have nothing against Uber, but if I wanted their app, I would install it.
Maybe you should pre-install a computer algebra system app? (CAS) Since I use it, I would tend to believe that everyone would be interested in such an app!
> Self-Driving Delivery Robots To Hit Sidewalks of London In 2016
Why can't they have good enough collision avoidance so that they DO NOT hit the sidewalks?
As long as they are insecurely secure.
In classic government oxymoronic style. Governments are full of oxymorons.
Some government "adult male" in their "arrogant humility" engaged in "a just war" wants us to "agree to disagree" to introduce "astronomically small" insecurities into our "insecurely secure" systems so that "military intelligence" can "read unreadable" messages.
It all makes sense.
. . . where the speaker compared the two approaches like this:
Gradually trying to move towards driverless cars instead of working directly on that goal is like thinking that by practicing jumping and getting better and better a jumping that you'll eventually be able to fly.
There are alternatives to Taco Bellyache
Close but incorrect.
The most disruptive technology of the last 100 years was . . .
Ta da . . .
Northern Toilet Tissue. Introduced in 1935. The very first splinter free toilet tissue.
Now that's innovation we take for granted.
Ah, but assembly uses labels as targets of jump and subroutine instructions. And data memory references.
You should do it like the hardware does. Use numeric memory addresses as targets of instructions that address memory.
Was modern mental health treatment unable to help those individuals who suffered from having used JCL?
Isn't the world bad enough already?
That's not a real tablet. It runs a Microsoft OS.
That's the problem with FireOS. Everything about it is designed to sell you something. Constantly. I would happily pay much more for a tablet which improves my life rather than constantly trying to sell me something. Oh, like the tablet that I already have.
That's what they want you to think. You have been affected by the government's invisible brain lasers!