If they were public buses instead of company buses, would they clog the streets any less? Whoever owns and rides them, they are mass transit. Only in San Francisco would people complain about folks using mass transit. I'm no big fan of Silly Valley and its satellite communities like San Francisco, but this has to be one of the silliest, and most hypocritical, complaints I've ever heard.
The silliest I heard was Seattle City Council Member Sally Clark say that she wanted to tax SkyBridges out of existence because that would make the street safer.
the Soviet union also could have used this primitive system of global satellite coverage, somehow that fact got lost on our own boneheaded leaders
But Democracy thrives on an increase of communication. Socialism dies with communication; which is why the Soviets tried to hard to suppress free press, free speech, etc.
We could get rid of the House of Representatives and go to a faux direct democracy system. What would happen would be at any point in time you could vote on anything you felt like voting on; but this would overwhelm... well... everybody. But at any point you could assign your vote to somebody else (for example you really like how your friend thinks and you want them to deal with it). Slowly the voting power would coalesce to people who had ideas that lots of people like. No regional boundaries, no elections, and accountability on how your vote is being used. We'd have to trust the internet for something with logistics like that though.
Of course the responsibility of writing legislation would be pushed to the Senate, and there wouldn't be any more closed doors hearings for the House, but o'well.
I don't know if it would become a problem if half of the country ended up giving their vote to Jon Stewart and the other half to Bill O'Reilly, but having two representatives instead of 435 could be cool.
I think Gates efforts at vaccination is great. However it would be even greater if those countries affected move forward on respecting private property and allowing for economic freedom and let their people get richer, because then they themselves could pay for vaccination efforts without needing Gates' billions, and without crushing poverty the efforts would be more effective with less graft & corruption.
So you think that Bill Gates should hire a private army, over throw the cleptocrates, and employ a non corruptible bureaucracy, to allow the citizens of third world nations to bring themselves out of poverty?
I have to resort to a Guest account for their use and switch back and forth? I don't know anyone who operates Windows that way (at least for personal home use).
I have my home computers setup that way, and so does my extended family. As easy as switching between accounts was in Windows 7, it became a lot easier and faster in Windows 8.
It's sitting there in plain text for anybody with _physical access_ to the machine to get. So no, any website can not access it, but anybody on the machine can.
That's assuming that there's no security holes in Chrome. But there could be a security hole which will then make it so that the computer can't distinguish between a user with physical access and a program running.
I'm sorry, but there is a dedicated area for my stuff -- on Windows it's Documents and Settings, and on UNIX it's the home directory.
From the Chrome teams response for this issue, I believe that's what they're doing. If someone is logged into your OS session as you, they can see the passwords. Somebody logged into the same computer, but as a different user, can't see the passwords.
I have to wonder about the Microsoft corporate strategy to keep changing the interfaces to their OS with each release.
Imagine if all changes were on the back end (security, improved networking, etc) and only a handful of changes were made with the front end. Windows would have millions of content and loyal users. And nobody would ever want to change.
Should Microsoft only change everything in Windows, but the shell, every consumer out there would look at a copy of the new OS and go "Why would I buy this, nothing has changed?" They have to change the shell, if for any other reason, the average computer user can acknowledge it's atleast different.
The Wii already had that, and it was called the MotionPlus. It didn't work out too well because by that time most third-party developers had jumped ship. Given that, I don't think a Wii 2 would have worked out much better.
MotionPlus was a failure in solving the problem of better motion control. It still would "lose" you, and you had to regularly (sometimes every ten or so minutes) have to recalibrate the thing. MotionPlus was a stop gap, and it's sad that in the current state of things, looks like the solution. Motion Plus was something that could be added to the existing system; what the successor to the Wii needed was an improved motion sensor, not an identical one.
I really like the Wii. The motion controls system is by far gen 1, and I always figured that the successor to the Wii would have a better motion control system (perhaps something akin to the Kinect, but a little shy). Then the Wii U is announced and it turns out that the motion control system is identical. The Wii U is a Wii + a fat controller with a screen stuck between the controls.
So Nintendo back peddled on the motion control thing they had going for them, and as a result the older hardware is still outselling the new hardware because it's cheaper and does as good as the newer hardware in what people buy a Wii for. If the Wii U had a motion control system consumers considered to be an improvement over the Wii, I suspect that Wii U would be at least outselling the Wii.
You're acting as it Ballmer kept track of the servers, and could possibly care about the differences between VMs, blades, or whatever. He's probably just regurgitating some number that one of his directs told him.
stop whining and build something. if you really want better training and are even willing to sponsor it, then hire the people when they come out. don't go running to East Sub-Nirvana for code at pennies per day and then whine there are no programmers in the shadow of the CEO's mansions.
Companies learned that if they train somebody, that person will quit and go to the job that pays more, but doesn't train. So all of the companies are sitting around waiting for the sucker company to start training people, so they can then suck them up without having to pay for training.
It's similar to why adult domestic house cats are pretty much adult kittens who would die in the wild.
You seem to have confused cats with dogs. There's plenty of research about how even domestic cats may not even be domesticated! There's no reason for humans to domesticate cats, and it probably never happened. Cats go feral all the time.
Dogs on the other hand, have been domesticated and the vast majority would die once no longer in the care of a human.
I don't understand why advertisers are so eager to profile users.
Well, that's what advertisers used to do, back in the days when it was a regular discussion about how companies can make money by advertising online. When some guys at MS pitched to Steve Ballmer that they should switch to targeted ads instead of content related banner ads he didn't buy it. Then Google came along and targeted the user. Companies started paying Google all of the money they could scrape together because of the noticeably higher ROI when advertising is targeting the user. That resulting in all of the internet advertising dollars going to solutions which target the user.
The postal service might as well take your package, throw it in a pit, and set it on fire. And people wonder why the government is so inefficient.
First, there's a difference between you going around and scanning for information (your first point) and handing information over to another party in order for that other party to perform a service on your behalf.
Second, I'm fine with a part of the government knowing where a packing came from, who it is going to, and tracking the packing, while in transit, but only for the purpose of sending the packing. Once the package is sent, there's no reason for them to retain that information. (Okay, there might be a good occasional reason that would deal with optimizing shipping routes, but that can be done with PII removed).
Again, just because you as a private citizen may do something which doesn't bother civil liberties groups, doesn't mean that the same action is okay by a good government.
I'm confused on why there would be any expectation this is private to begin with. I could walk around my neighborhood and build my own database based off of the boxes on everyone's porch.
Because you are not the government. Government needs to be handled differently than other parties that you interact with. Government provides power, which corrupts. While there may not be an expectation of privacy between our fellow citizens, there certainly is with our relationship to our government.
Slashdot Mirror
since Windows 8 uses this TPM shit, and you can't turn that off, you inherently can't trust the OS.
Given that Vista was TPM aware that means that Win 7 is too. Why isn't the BSI saying that any Windows OS greater than Win XP unsecure?
If they were public buses instead of company buses, would they clog the streets any less? Whoever owns and rides them, they are mass transit. Only in San Francisco would people complain about folks using mass transit. I'm no big fan of Silly Valley and its satellite communities like San Francisco, but this has to be one of the silliest, and most hypocritical, complaints I've ever heard.
The silliest I heard was Seattle City Council Member Sally Clark say that she wanted to tax SkyBridges out of existence because that would make the street safer.
the Soviet union also could have used this primitive system of global satellite coverage, somehow that fact got lost on our own boneheaded leaders
But Democracy thrives on an increase of communication. Socialism dies with communication; which is why the Soviets tried to hard to suppress free press, free speech, etc.
have a committee drawn from the General Population in a similar way to jury selection.
One crafty person could completely get the language to work in a way that the other non-crafty people wouldn't be able to protect themselves against.
We could get rid of the House of Representatives and go to a faux direct democracy system. What would happen would be at any point in time you could vote on anything you felt like voting on; but this would overwhelm ... well ... everybody. But at any point you could assign your vote to somebody else (for example you really like how your friend thinks and you want them to deal with it). Slowly the voting power would coalesce to people who had ideas that lots of people like. No regional boundaries, no elections, and accountability on how your vote is being used. We'd have to trust the internet for something with logistics like that though.
Of course the responsibility of writing legislation would be pushed to the Senate, and there wouldn't be any more closed doors hearings for the House, but o'well.
I don't know if it would become a problem if half of the country ended up giving their vote to Jon Stewart and the other half to Bill O'Reilly, but having two representatives instead of 435 could be cool.
Now I'm asking myself whether making the investment in Powershell is worthwhile.
It's worthwhile.
The problem with pigeons is that they're susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks.
I thought they were susceptible to cat-in-the-middle attacks.
I think Gates efforts at vaccination is great. However it would be even greater if those countries affected move forward on respecting private property and allowing for economic freedom and let their people get richer, because then they themselves could pay for vaccination efforts without needing Gates' billions, and without crushing poverty the efforts would be more effective with less graft & corruption.
So you think that Bill Gates should hire a private army, over throw the cleptocrates, and employ a non corruptible bureaucracy, to allow the citizens of third world nations to bring themselves out of poverty?
I have to resort to a Guest account for their use and switch back and forth? I don't know anyone who operates Windows that way (at least for personal home use).
I have my home computers setup that way, and so does my extended family. As easy as switching between accounts was in Windows 7, it became a lot easier and faster in Windows 8.
And that is criminally stupid.
Why is having my user account, have information local only to my user account criminally stupid?
Resetting passwords is a hugely complicated process on machines you have physical access to...
Especially if the computer has UEFI Secure Boot enabled.
It's sitting there in plain text for anybody with _physical access_ to the machine to get. So no, any website can not access it, but anybody on the machine can.
That's assuming that there's no security holes in Chrome. But there could be a security hole which will then make it so that the computer can't distinguish between a user with physical access and a program running.
I'm sorry, but there is a dedicated area for my stuff -- on Windows it's Documents and Settings, and on UNIX it's the home directory.
From the Chrome teams response for this issue, I believe that's what they're doing. If someone is logged into your OS session as you, they can see the passwords. Somebody logged into the same computer, but as a different user, can't see the passwords.
I think it will be the end of "social networks" and return to the Internet, which based on open source technologies.
You don't know any non-nerds, do you?
I have to wonder about the Microsoft corporate strategy to keep changing the interfaces to their OS with each release. Imagine if all changes were on the back end (security, improved networking, etc) and only a handful of changes were made with the front end. Windows would have millions of content and loyal users. And nobody would ever want to change.
Should Microsoft only change everything in Windows, but the shell, every consumer out there would look at a copy of the new OS and go "Why would I buy this, nothing has changed?" They have to change the shell, if for any other reason, the average computer user can acknowledge it's atleast different.
The Wii already had that, and it was called the MotionPlus. It didn't work out too well because by that time most third-party developers had jumped ship. Given that, I don't think a Wii 2 would have worked out much better.
MotionPlus was a failure in solving the problem of better motion control. It still would "lose" you, and you had to regularly (sometimes every ten or so minutes) have to recalibrate the thing. MotionPlus was a stop gap, and it's sad that in the current state of things, looks like the solution. Motion Plus was something that could be added to the existing system; what the successor to the Wii needed was an improved motion sensor, not an identical one.
I really like the Wii. The motion controls system is by far gen 1, and I always figured that the successor to the Wii would have a better motion control system (perhaps something akin to the Kinect, but a little shy). Then the Wii U is announced and it turns out that the motion control system is identical. The Wii U is a Wii + a fat controller with a screen stuck between the controls.
So Nintendo back peddled on the motion control thing they had going for them, and as a result the older hardware is still outselling the new hardware because it's cheaper and does as good as the newer hardware in what people buy a Wii for. If the Wii U had a motion control system consumers considered to be an improvement over the Wii, I suspect that Wii U would be at least outselling the Wii.
You're acting as it Ballmer kept track of the servers, and could possibly care about the differences between VMs, blades, or whatever. He's probably just regurgitating some number that one of his directs told him.
stop whining and build something. if you really want better training and are even willing to sponsor it, then hire the people when they come out. don't go running to East Sub-Nirvana for code at pennies per day and then whine there are no programmers in the shadow of the CEO's mansions.
Companies learned that if they train somebody, that person will quit and go to the job that pays more, but doesn't train. So all of the companies are sitting around waiting for the sucker company to start training people, so they can then suck them up without having to pay for training.
Why not a thin phone with a more power efficient OS?
God forbid anyone look at the words to understand them based on their content and construction.
The Real Meaning of MPH
It's similar to why adult domestic house cats are pretty much adult kittens who would die in the wild.
You seem to have confused cats with dogs. There's plenty of research about how even domestic cats may not even be domesticated! There's no reason for humans to domesticate cats, and it probably never happened. Cats go feral all the time.
Dogs on the other hand, have been domesticated and the vast majority would die once no longer in the care of a human.
I don't understand why advertisers are so eager to profile users.
Well, that's what advertisers used to do, back in the days when it was a regular discussion about how companies can make money by advertising online. When some guys at MS pitched to Steve Ballmer that they should switch to targeted ads instead of content related banner ads he didn't buy it. Then Google came along and targeted the user. Companies started paying Google all of the money they could scrape together because of the noticeably higher ROI when advertising is targeting the user. That resulting in all of the internet advertising dollars going to solutions which target the user.
The postal service might as well take your package, throw it in a pit, and set it on fire. And people wonder why the government is so inefficient.
First, there's a difference between you going around and scanning for information (your first point) and handing information over to another party in order for that other party to perform a service on your behalf.
Second, I'm fine with a part of the government knowing where a packing came from, who it is going to, and tracking the packing, while in transit, but only for the purpose of sending the packing. Once the package is sent, there's no reason for them to retain that information. (Okay, there might be a good occasional reason that would deal with optimizing shipping routes, but that can be done with PII removed).
Again, just because you as a private citizen may do something which doesn't bother civil liberties groups, doesn't mean that the same action is okay by a good government.
I'm confused on why there would be any expectation this is private to begin with. I could walk around my neighborhood and build my own database based off of the boxes on everyone's porch.
Because you are not the government. Government needs to be handled differently than other parties that you interact with. Government provides power, which corrupts. While there may not be an expectation of privacy between our fellow citizens, there certainly is with our relationship to our government.