Not everyone makes their profile public. If, however, an advertisement were to be targetted only at those men who declared themselves to be gay on Facebook, and they happened to click on that ad (perhaps something seemingly innocent), then you could basically get them to identify themselves.
You can determine, with high probability, a person's sexual orientation based on other information in their Facebook profile; a person who might not want to "come out" could be identified this way. The attack described above could thus be used to "out" someone.
I see your point, but I'd reply that if you don't want to "come out", you shouldn't declare yourself gay anywhere and most certainly not on facebook of all places.
That's not even counting the fact that most "green" political parties (at least in France) are a bunch of opportunistic retards that are just there for politics, not at all about ecology.
Oh, don't worry, I know that. It started slipping on the crapvertisement slope quite a while ago. The real question is: How low will it go. The the clue we're getting this week is: pretty damn low.
Yeah, before they actually tried to coat the advertisement with some layer of techie double talk. Now it's like "Listen people, this guy is going to tell you what you should buy."
Then we'll use steganography. What happens when you watermark a picture with seemingly random bits of data? Is anyone able to tell there is watermarking at all?
No.
So there. Hate messages will still go through, just using more and more bits to hide themselves in the middle.
When I was a student I would provide general IT course to an old dude that needed help with his computer. He bought a CD player and a couple of CDs. The next time I went to his home he told me "CDs are crap, my old Audio VHS recorder is much better". He had bought the same recording of some concert he already owned on LP and it sounded like crap. He has a VCR that could record Audio on the full width of the tape (with the helicoidal head). That gave incredible quality.
So we brought the VCR close to the PC, plugged it in the IN jack of the soundblaster, recorded a few minutes of audio, burned that on CD.
He listened to it and was amazed at the quality: virtually no audible loss.
He then realized what I already knew: No matter how technically great the format, if you put crap on it, it'll be perceived as crap.
You think the government is going to care about those perfectly legit sections? Sorry, they're a casualty. They should have known better than to put it on the same server as the forbidden content.
But then what happens when Anon hack the French gov website and inject hateful content? Do all the administrations automatically become jail meat? The president? Maybe all the citizens, leaving just the illegal immigrants at the steering wheel?
Did you miss the part where I said "Often these sites have perfectly legit (should we say 'reasonable'?) sections and it's going to be harder and harder to determine which parts the users actually went to" ?
Of course, if you go to 'thejihad.net' whose only content is hatred based, you're easily detectable. That's unless you use a trusted proxy outside of France of course. Or a VPN. Or Tor. Or...
Ways to anonymize yourself are numerous and will flourish if such a stupid law were to come into effect.
It's actually asking a closed question, making only two choices available. So in a way it's a conclusion in that it says that it's going to be either one or the other.
Of course. And the summary is also wrong in its conclusion: "Is this a good move for security, or just another step towards a totalitarian society that prohibits free expression?"
It's just a step toward all websites using https so that nobody will have a fucking clue what you're looking at anymore. Often these sites have perfectly legit (should we say 'reasonable'?) sections and it's going to be harder and harder to determine which parts the users actually went to.
Option 3 is risky, but not as risky as going at it alone.
From my point of view, #3 is by far the most risky choice. Here is how I see it:
1. It's going with a platform with 0% marketshare. Damn more risky than staying with Symbian or going with Android. 2. It's going with a partner that let its last platform go from a decent marketshare to almost zero in 4 years. Much worse than Nokia did themselves with their own platform.
Damn! I wouldn't have bet 1 cent on WP at that time. I saw it - as did many others - as the death of Nokia. And so far, sales reports are validating our view. The only worse option would have been to license RIM's OS if that was an option.
The iPad and iPhone UI paradigm is DEAD SIMPLE for non tech people because THERE IS ONLY ONE BUTTON.
So, wherever they are and however bad they've screwed up, there is this one button getting them back to the home screen. It's not simple, it's obvious.
This is a major difference with a VCR, and a PC for that matter. The problem with these devices is that they are stateful. Invariably the n00b will find himself in a situation where he doesn't know how to get out. I once did spot my mother in law on a word document, with a magnifying glass of 800% and word windowed in a small window on the top left of her screen. She was literally editing the document with a viewport showing 3 characters. Of course, she found it inconvenient. So I explained to her the "full screen" icon on the top right and the zoom setting in word. The next day, she had forgotten all of it.
Why did she forget? It's not complex dammit !!!!
It's just that these paradigms are completely both alien and useless for random grandmas. So they don't remember them.
As you said, there is a whole lot of a difference between 99% cashless and 100% cashless.
For one, having a few $100 bills somewhere in your house DOES come in handy when your credit card is unavailable (lost, forgotten at work, just b0rked...)
Privacy is also a good thing.
Then you also have the banks that could shut down and restrict the amount of money you can spend. It means a pretty hard collapse of the financial system. This has happened in the past, and there is absolutely no shred of evidence it will not happen again. No cash, out of luck. You're just screwed. Totally.
There is also the cloud meltdown. Let's not forget all these systems are networks of computers. These things fail. Again, it has happened, it will happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
True, 100% true. I wish I still had mod points.
I see your point, but I'd reply that if you don't want to "come out", you shouldn't declare yourself gay anywhere and most certainly not on facebook of all places.
That's not even counting the fact that most "green" political parties (at least in France) are a bunch of opportunistic retards that are just there for politics, not at all about ecology.
Actually, from what I've just read, when doing a CPU intensive task it may not charge at all.
Make no mistake, there's no flirting going on here ;-)
No he doesn't say that, but thanks for proving how slashdot is going downhill.
I did read between the lines - I should have been more straightforward in my original reply, you are correct.
Oh, don't worry, I know that. It started slipping on the crapvertisement slope quite a while ago. The real question is: How low will it go. The the clue we're getting this week is: pretty damn low.
In a couple of lines, what does he say?
Please buy the TVs whose manufacturers pay me more $$$ for.
Yeah, before they actually tried to coat the advertisement with some layer of techie double talk. Now it's like "Listen people, this guy is going to tell you what you should buy."
WTF? Where is slashdot?
Fuck me sideways!
Three questions:
1. Are you hot?
2. Where do you live?
3. When can we meet?
Sideways sounds intriguing ;-)
why not? An open source windows application is still an open source application
Yes, but it is not Free as free in beer sense because it depends on proprietary non-free software.
Do you think Linux include the microcode of the CPUs it's been compiled for? Ask Intel and AMD. No software stack is entirely free. Get over it.
Your brother bought a Galaxy Tab and sold it, so the iPad is useless?
Dude. Come on. I know we're on slashdot, but still...
You can play while charging.
But it does charge significantly slower then.
I honestly do not believe this story.
It sounds so ridiculously fabricated its not even funny.
You know, I have absolutely no trouble believing this. It could have been fabricated, for sure. But there are people that stupid, unfortunately.
Now that complaint is just plain irrational.
*whoooosh*
Windy today.
Then we'll use steganography. What happens when you watermark a picture with seemingly random bits of data? Is anyone able to tell there is watermarking at all?
No.
So there. Hate messages will still go through, just using more and more bits to hide themselves in the middle.
It's like the CD experience but much much worse.
When I was a student I would provide general IT course to an old dude that needed help with his computer. He bought a CD player and a couple of CDs. The next time I went to his home he told me "CDs are crap, my old Audio VHS recorder is much better". He had bought the same recording of some concert he already owned on LP and it sounded like crap. He has a VCR that could record Audio on the full width of the tape (with the helicoidal head). That gave incredible quality.
So we brought the VCR close to the PC, plugged it in the IN jack of the soundblaster, recorded a few minutes of audio, burned that on CD.
He listened to it and was amazed at the quality: virtually no audible loss.
He then realized what I already knew: No matter how technically great the format, if you put crap on it, it'll be perceived as crap.
You think the government is going to care about those perfectly legit sections? Sorry, they're a casualty. They should have known better than to put it on the same server as the forbidden content.
But then what happens when Anon hack the French gov website and inject hateful content? Do all the administrations automatically become jail meat? The president? Maybe all the citizens, leaving just the illegal immigrants at the steering wheel?
Did you miss the part where I said "Often these sites have perfectly legit (should we say 'reasonable'?) sections and it's going to be harder and harder to determine which parts the users actually went to" ?
Of course, if you go to 'thejihad.net' whose only content is hatred based, you're easily detectable. That's unless you use a trusted proxy outside of France of course. Or a VPN. Or Tor. Or ...
Ways to anonymize yourself are numerous and will flourish if such a stupid law were to come into effect.
It's actually asking a closed question, making only two choices available. So in a way it's a conclusion in that it says that it's going to be either one or the other.
Monkey-face yourself !
What he proposed isn't going to happen of course.
Of course. And the summary is also wrong in its conclusion: "Is this a good move for security, or just another step towards a totalitarian society that prohibits free expression?"
It's just a step toward all websites using https so that nobody will have a fucking clue what you're looking at anymore. Often these sites have perfectly legit (should we say 'reasonable'?) sections and it's going to be harder and harder to determine which parts the users actually went to.
I'm wondering whether my old nokia dumb phone will last longer than Nokia the company ;).
I'd bet on that for sure.
Option 3 is risky, but not as risky as going at it alone.
From my point of view, #3 is by far the most risky choice. Here is how I see it:
1. It's going with a platform with 0% marketshare. Damn more risky than staying with Symbian or going with Android.
2. It's going with a partner that let its last platform go from a decent marketshare to almost zero in 4 years. Much worse than Nokia did themselves with their own platform.
Damn! I wouldn't have bet 1 cent on WP at that time. I saw it - as did many others - as the death of Nokia. And so far, sales reports are validating our view. The only worse option would have been to license RIM's OS if that was an option.
The iPad and iPhone UI paradigm is DEAD SIMPLE for non tech people because THERE IS ONLY ONE BUTTON.
So, wherever they are and however bad they've screwed up, there is this one button getting them back to the home screen. It's not simple, it's obvious.
This is a major difference with a VCR, and a PC for that matter. The problem with these devices is that they are stateful. Invariably the n00b will find himself in a situation where he doesn't know how to get out. I once did spot my mother in law on a word document, with a magnifying glass of 800% and word windowed in a small window on the top left of her screen. She was literally editing the document with a viewport showing 3 characters. Of course, she found it inconvenient. So I explained to her the "full screen" icon on the top right and the zoom setting in word. The next day, she had forgotten all of it.
Why did she forget? It's not complex dammit !!!!
It's just that these paradigms are completely both alien and useless for random grandmas. So they don't remember them.
As you said, there is a whole lot of a difference between 99% cashless and 100% cashless.
For one, having a few $100 bills somewhere in your house DOES come in handy when your credit card is unavailable (lost, forgotten at work, just b0rked...)
Privacy is also a good thing.
Then you also have the banks that could shut down and restrict the amount of money you can spend. It means a pretty hard collapse of the financial system. This has happened in the past, and there is absolutely no shred of evidence it will not happen again. No cash, out of luck. You're just screwed. Totally.
There is also the cloud meltdown. Let's not forget all these systems are networks of computers. These things fail. Again, it has happened, it will happen again.