> Austin, TX loves to do this around 2am so that the green starts on an UP HILL! Fine,
> I'll burn more gas and contribute to global warming...with fucking glee!!!
Don't think of it as increasing global warming, which some Texans would tell you doesn't even exist. Rather, think of it as helping the business of all those poor, underprivileged oil producers. Texas is a PRO-business state. One of the legislators said so.
> The idea is that when you are 1000m away from the light and can't see the countdown
> timer your car tells you something like "maintain 30kph to avoid having to stop".
It would be much more welcome news to hear my car tell me: "increase speed to 85 mph to avoid having to stop".
Okay. Let me amend the article summary for you . . .
"Symantec has demonstrated it with an ATM in its labs, though it is not revealing the brand of the vulnerable machines . . . because Diebold already has a bad enough reputation with it's e-voting machines.
Look, it is not an entitlement mentality. Isn't the first amendment all about the freedom of being able to express a point of view supporting intelligent design, and then force other people to agree with it?
We've all seen the professionals get it wrong. Sometimes very wrong.
Furthermore, dedicated ammatuers who focus on a particular subject often have quicker and better coverage of news on that topic. Professional mass media news often over simplifies news, sometimes to the point of almost losing the story.
Then we've all seen the bias of professional news organizations. Freedom of the press is for whoever owns one. Look at how all mainstream mass media was completely silent about SOPA until the Internet forced the issue into the public eye. Then, the professional journalists all told whatever story their owners wanted us to hear.
I'm not saying that professional journalism is all bad. It's just not all good either. And the same for ammatuers. It is up to you to decide what news sources you trust. Some professionals have, and should rightfully so, not be given any trust.
We now have news channels that are more about info-tainment and the most fantastical splashy graphics than they are about real news. Closing down bureaus and getting rid of real investigative reporters because it is cheaper to just do talking heads? Then we also have professional news sources whose entire purpose is to promote a particular ideology. So maybe, increasingly, the only difference between the ammatuers and professionals is how big a budget they have? Now TV news anchors have to be fashion models. But in the past they had to be journalists who eventually earned the position of anchor. They weren't models, they just had to look okay.
So I find arguments about the goodness of professional news over news on the internet to be less than completely convincing.
Better to compromise certificate authorities than to compromise certificates.
After all, who wouldn't trust a certificate authority. There are so many to choose from.
If your browser is presented with a genuine signed Google.com certificate, issued by Honest Achmed's Trusty Certificates of Tehran Iran, then why shouldn't your browser just trust this certificate from a trusted CA?
> How DID the Narn (an agrarian society at that time) manage to drive the Shadows from their home world?
I thought it was clear that Narn telepaths "mind walkers" did this. Perhaps the Narn had especially powerful telepaths, and that was the reason it was necessary to remove the telepath gene from the Narn race.
> Management says that sales of captured employee personal data probably recover 75-80% of losses
> resultant from stolen company time, and increases shareholder value dramatically.
Wouldn't it be easier, not to mention vastly more profitable, to recover these losses by selling organs harvested from employees? Don't they teach this kind of thing in MBA school?
It is quite well settled scientific fact that those who find themselves at a business disadvantage due to the existence of facts they don't like will immediately lobby for legislation to overturn these silly facts in the interest of being pro-business.
Short of that, then the next best thing is to create a controversy. Since it is a creative work, shouldn't the controversy be copyrighted? Or even better . . . patented to protect the idea! Or maybe the observations underlying scientific advancement should be made privately owned, or subject to a government auction. I wouldn't have expected anyone to take these suggestions seriously twenty years ago. But today? Who knows?
> The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.
Friend, you use such strange words. What is this 'constitutional authority' thing you speak of?
The overlords have always had the authority to do anything they please. It has been this way since the ancient time of the great change that came after the falling of two towers.
In addition to making it Opt-In, or even Opt-Out, there is no reason that the government needs to hold the switch to remotely disable a phone. If the purpose is as stated, then only the carrier needs to be able to remotely disable a phone, and only on a one-by-one basis.
So make sure that the bill makes it illegal for anyone but the carrier to remotely disable a phone, and then only with the express permission of its owner. Make it expressly illegal for the government to have direct access to the kill switch. Make the kill switch implementation be such that only a single phone can be disabled in a single manual operation -- no mass remote disabling.
Also, if they don't already do this, mandate an industry wide blacklist of IMEI's (or some other un-alterable baked -in number) in case the phone can be loaded with a new ROM image. That way at least, the phone can never be activated.
Why not extend this to WiFi only tablets as well? The manufacturer, and any manufacturer designated party (eg, Google?) can remotely disable a non-phone device if it ever phones home and has been registered by its owner as stolen.
> What they want to do is be able to shut down everyone's line of communications just in case the hoi polloi get too uppity.
Actually, a more effective way to do that is to have a way to shut off communication at the towers. This would preserve the ability to send out mass propaganda to still working phones in the event of an 'emergency'. Also, I hear that there is some value in the metadata. Also the phones are tracking devices. It might be more effective and valuable to fake busy signals, and other communication interruptions rather than to outright kill smartphones.
This is trying to fix a social problem with technology. Which cannot be done unless you through enough technology at it.
A computer vision system that watches all the passengers, all the time. When one uses a camera, the computerized nanny will activate lights / lasers that point into the camera lens -- or alternately tasers that point at the camera operator.
That would make the owners of the bus seem like nice guys instead of the pricks they seem to want to be.
Your black hole solution is impractical and borders on fantasy. Furthermore it does not discriminate between the guest's cameras and the bus owner's cameras.
A much better solution IMO would be to use a light source which produces photons that, even when reflected, will not go into a guest's camera lens.
There. Doesn't that seem like a much better idea?
(And please don't suggest a black hole that only sucks in photons that were headed toward a guest's camera. But I bet the USPTO could grant a patent on any of these great ideas!)
Slashdot Mirror
Stop complaining.
Microsoft fixed it, didn't they?
Microsoft takes security seriously.
(Hey, stop it. Stop laughing. Hey, I said STOP LAUGHING!)
> Austin, TX loves to do this around 2am so that the green starts on an UP HILL! Fine,
> I'll burn more gas and contribute to global warming...with fucking glee!!!
Don't think of it as increasing global warming, which some Texans would tell you doesn't even exist. Rather, think of it as helping the business of all those poor, underprivileged oil producers. Texas is a PRO-business state. One of the legislators said so.
> The idea is that when you are 1000m away from the light and can't see the countdown
> timer your car tells you something like "maintain 30kph to avoid having to stop".
It would be much more welcome news to hear my car tell me: "increase speed to 85 mph to avoid having to stop".
At least most modern mobile plans give you unlimited SMS.
> They now call themselves Premier Election Systems.
OT, I know, but shouldn't that be: Premier Election Rigging Systems?
Better?
Look, it is not an entitlement mentality. Isn't the first amendment all about the freedom of being able to express a point of view supporting intelligent design, and then force other people to agree with it?
We've all seen the professionals get it wrong. Sometimes very wrong.
Furthermore, dedicated ammatuers who focus on a particular subject often have quicker and better coverage of news on that topic. Professional mass media news often over simplifies news, sometimes to the point of almost losing the story.
Then we've all seen the bias of professional news organizations. Freedom of the press is for whoever owns one. Look at how all mainstream mass media was completely silent about SOPA until the Internet forced the issue into the public eye. Then, the professional journalists all told whatever story their owners wanted us to hear.
I'm not saying that professional journalism is all bad. It's just not all good either. And the same for ammatuers. It is up to you to decide what news sources you trust. Some professionals have, and should rightfully so, not be given any trust.
We now have news channels that are more about info-tainment and the most fantastical splashy graphics than they are about real news. Closing down bureaus and getting rid of real investigative reporters because it is cheaper to just do talking heads? Then we also have professional news sources whose entire purpose is to promote a particular ideology. So maybe, increasingly, the only difference between the ammatuers and professionals is how big a budget they have? Now TV news anchors have to be fashion models. But in the past they had to be journalists who eventually earned the position of anchor. They weren't models, they just had to look okay.
So I find arguments about the goodness of professional news over news on the internet to be less than completely convincing.
Not a girl.
> Google was only furious because the NSA was accessing the data without paying.
Wrong. Google was only furious because the NSA was accessing the data without seeing ads.
Better to compromise certificate authorities than to compromise certificates.
After all, who wouldn't trust a certificate authority. There are so many to choose from.
If your browser is presented with a genuine signed Google.com certificate, issued by Honest Achmed's Trusty Certificates of Tehran Iran, then why shouldn't your browser just trust this certificate from a trusted CA?
> How DID the Narn (an agrarian society at that time) manage to drive the Shadows from their home world?
I thought it was clear that Narn telepaths "mind walkers" did this. Perhaps the Narn had especially powerful telepaths, and that was the reason it was necessary to remove the telepath gene from the Narn race.
Yes. Yes, this. I was going to ask the same.
> What's wrong with notepad?
What's wrong with Edlin?
> > You obviously have never used GNU/Emacs.
> or Turbo Pascal
of Edlin.
But punched paper tape is slow and makes a lot of noise.
Punched paper tape has better longevity than either floppies or optical media. You just need a really big roll and a lot of time.
> Management says that sales of captured employee personal data probably recover 75-80% of losses
> resultant from stolen company time, and increases shareholder value dramatically.
Wouldn't it be easier, not to mention vastly more profitable, to recover these losses by selling organs harvested from employees? Don't they teach this kind of thing in MBA school?
It is quite well settled scientific fact that those who find themselves at a business disadvantage due to the existence of facts they don't like will immediately lobby for legislation to overturn these silly facts in the interest of being pro-business.
Short of that, then the next best thing is to create a controversy. Since it is a creative work, shouldn't the controversy be copyrighted? Or even better . . . patented to protect the idea! Or maybe the observations underlying scientific advancement should be made privately owned, or subject to a government auction. I wouldn't have expected anyone to take these suggestions seriously twenty years ago. But today? Who knows?
> The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.
Friend, you use such strange words. What is this 'constitutional authority' thing you speak of?
The overlords have always had the authority to do anything they please. It has been this way since the ancient time of the great change that came after the falling of two towers.
In addition to making it Opt-In, or even Opt-Out, there is no reason that the government needs to hold the switch to remotely disable a phone. If the purpose is as stated, then only the carrier needs to be able to remotely disable a phone, and only on a one-by-one basis.
So make sure that the bill makes it illegal for anyone but the carrier to remotely disable a phone, and then only with the express permission of its owner. Make it expressly illegal for the government to have direct access to the kill switch. Make the kill switch implementation be such that only a single phone can be disabled in a single manual operation -- no mass remote disabling.
Also, if they don't already do this, mandate an industry wide blacklist of IMEI's (or some other un-alterable baked -in number) in case the phone can be loaded with a new ROM image. That way at least, the phone can never be activated.
Why not extend this to WiFi only tablets as well? The manufacturer, and any manufacturer designated party (eg, Google?) can remotely disable a non-phone device if it ever phones home and has been registered by its owner as stolen.
> What they want to do is be able to shut down everyone's line of communications just in case the hoi polloi get too uppity.
Actually, a more effective way to do that is to have a way to shut off communication at the towers. This would preserve the ability to send out mass propaganda to still working phones in the event of an 'emergency'. Also, I hear that there is some value in the metadata. Also the phones are tracking devices. It might be more effective and valuable to fake busy signals, and other communication interruptions rather than to outright kill smartphones.
> What they want to do is be able to shut down everyone's line of communications just in case the hoi polloi get too uppity.
I wonder if dumb-phones would have the kill switch? I don't see them, or maybe I just don't notice, but I hear that a lot of people use dumb-phones.
This is trying to fix a social problem with technology. Which cannot be done unless you through enough technology at it.
A computer vision system that watches all the passengers, all the time. When one uses a camera, the computerized nanny will activate lights / lasers that point into the camera lens -- or alternately tasers that point at the camera operator.
That would make the owners of the bus seem like nice guys instead of the pricks they seem to want to be.
Your black hole solution is impractical and borders on fantasy. Furthermore it does not discriminate between the guest's cameras and the bus owner's cameras.
A much better solution IMO would be to use a light source which produces photons that, even when reflected, will not go into a guest's camera lens.
There. Doesn't that seem like a much better idea?
(And please don't suggest a black hole that only sucks in photons that were headed toward a guest's camera. But I bet the USPTO could grant a patent on any of these great ideas!)