The first past the post voting system in America will always reinforce the two party setup we have. Third party voting can send a message in a lopsided election but in anything close, it's dangerous. It is arguably the reason we even had GWB in the first place. Gore probably would have won had he not lost so many votes to the Green party.
Of course, the ones in power are the ones benefiting most from this arrangement, so it's unlikely to change.
Have you tried classic.slashdot.org ? I always browse the desktop version of/. on my phone because of how epically bad the mobile version is. I dead the day that the beta website becomes standard. That's worse than windows 8 level fail.
By the sound of your message, I'm guessing you examine every open source operating system, encryption method, web browser, word processor, music player, image manipulator, etc etc that you use on your computer. Most people don't. However, there are tons of professional security researchers, professors, college students, and hobbyists that can and do. If you're sending messages using an open source protocol, you can't hide it. Someone will notice.
With an open source protocol, it becomes simple to create (and open-source) fire wall software specifically for these systems that blocks messages based on type, source, destination, etc. Don't want messages getting out that reveal what you're using? Filter them. Don't want someone messing with your blinds from outside your network? Stop those messages. If you want to make it simple for people, give them a slider that lets them set, for the entire network, how open or closed their system is.
A packaged security platform? An OS or email virus scanner has to check an arbitrary file and determine if the intent of that file is to harm you or if it's a legitimate tool you want installed. It's WAY more complicated than what this requires. With an open source protocol, we're talking about well-defined packets flowing from one device to another. A packet gets sent to your thermostat that says "Hey you! Turn on!". Don't want that to happen? Filter those messages. A reliable and open source firewall could easily be created along those lines.
As for people being stupid, I didn't realize we should stop all progress because some people are irresponsible. I guess we better turn off the internet, get rid of all computers, take away everyone's car... we should probably just roll back all technology to before man first created fire because, you know, someone could burn themselves. And besides, what's the penalty for being irresponsible here? Having to pay a larger electric bill? Big whoop.
Because they're firewall protected inside a LAN? Everything you described will earn the hacker exactly $0. A determined attacker stands to gain nothing from cracking your security and playing with your light switches. At best, you'll have to defend against bored script kiddies and that's not that hard.
If it's open source, you can examine the packets being sent by the device yourself. You're free to put the devices behind a firewall to prevent anything you don't want from getting in or out. TFA also mentions that the devices should be able to communicate with each other completely without the internet so you can just cut them off completely, if you want.
The devices are a part of a network like any other. Put them behind a default-deny firewall, strong password accessible only through some random high-numbered port. With an open protocol, it would be trivial to tie all of it together. Hackers stand to earn exactly $0 by playing with your light switches so all you're going to attract are trollish script-kiddies and they're not that hard to defend against.
I'm perfectly aware that these things already exist. The problem is that you have to buy 20 different proprietary apps that only let you control your devices in the way they want you to. The point of the proposal in TFA is that this no longer has to be the case.
I can't believe I'm reading stuff like this from people on Slashdot of all places.
Why can't my washing machine/dryer/microwave send my cellphone an alert when it's done and I'm in another room?
Why can't I turn on the lights at home from the grocery store so I don't have to carry my groceries in while it's dark?
Why can't I turn on the jacuzzi during a rough day at work so it's ready when I get home?
Why can't my DVD player turn off my lights and close my blinds when it's time to watch a movie and then turn the lights back on when I pause it to get a drink?
Why can't my refrigerator detect what's in it and suggest recipes and tell me what's expired?
Why can't I check to see if I forgot to turn the stove off after I left the house?
Why can't my sprinklers check the weather forcast and put off watering if it's supposed to rain?
Why can't my blinds and windows automatically open and close to regulate the temperature in the house?
There's no reason all of this couldn't be done. TFA describes something I've always thought was needed. If anyone was able to write software to communicate between the things in your house (and the price of automation went down), I think that the popularity of communications-enabled appliances would soar as developers opened up all of these possibilities and more.
Unfortunately, my mod points expired yesterday. The chilling effect on assembly is perhaps the primary concern with regards to the collection of metadata because the fourth amendment doesn't address whether or not the government can stalk you. It only says that the government can't search your persons, houses, papers, and effects without cause. The government stalking you does have a real chilling effect on who you choose to assemble with out of fear of government repercussion.
The 4th amendment is suppose to protect you from government search and seizure in your own premise.
Where does it say that? All I see is this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
It doesn't state where you have to be to get those rights. It doesn't say you can be secure in your houses only. It lists those other things (persons, papers, and effects) precisely so the government can't wait around for you to leave your house and then search you or your stuff.
**WARNING: SLIPPERY SLOPE DETECTOR ACTIVATED** "No one forced you to use the train/subway/bus so of course they should be able to search you" (Already happening) "No one forced you to drive on public roads so of course they should be able to search you" (They are working on deploying scanner tech for the roadside right now) "No one forced you to use public sidewalks so of course they should be able to search you"
I heard a story about a bunch of truckers who wanted to ride slowly around DC to block up the roads in protest. (I can't think of their names to provide a link). They most certainly considered it free speech despite the fact that the thousands of people behind them on the highway have no idea what's going on. I don't know if they ever went through with it. If they did, would they have been thrown in jail for a decade and fined for all of the financial damage it caused?
There is an easier real world analogy than the one GP picked. If there's a city-wide riot and the police only are able to arrest a few people, do those few people have to pay for all of the damage done during the riot?
It's a difference in views. People view blocking a street as free speech. They see people staging a sit-in as trying to raise awareness for their cause and the send a message.
DDoS, on the other hand, they view as vandalism (unfathomably severe vandalism, if these prosecutors are to be believed).
Objectively, I don't see much of a difference between a sit-in and a DDoS but that might just be because I understand what a DDoS is. Most people don't.
That can't possibly be true. If free speech trumped copyright every time, there would be no copyright since it restricts my ability to copy and book and print it myself (which is considered speech).
What? How? Explain the context to me then. I've watched the entire video and the line means exactly what you'd expect.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims....These are people who pay no income tax....and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Also, did you forget about the "You didn't build that" misquote? The line in context CLEARLY meant "You didn't build that infrastructure." Yet, the Republicans used the misquote as the theme of their damn national convention!
I've thought about this before too. The problem I foresee is with following the supply chain. What if another shell company does all of the dirty parts and sends the result to the company that does the final assembly in the same country? How do you follow a supply chain all the way back to the ore being pulled out of the ground when it changes hands a dozen times across multiple borders?
That's because the opposite of conservative is not liberal. The opposite of conservative is progressive (usually this describes their economic positions). The opposite of liberal is authoritarian (in terms of social policies). Having no knowledge of Germanic politics, I can't know for sure if this is what he means.
You can. Not just local government offices, but local community centers. You can also call someone with the government over the phone to help you find insurance. Or, alternatively, you can get the information directly from the insurance companies (whom you have to sign up with anyway, even when using the website).
There's an intentional obfuscation of the situation here to try and equate the roll out of the website with the roll out of the law. They are not the same thing.
The summary states that the report calls for more manual flying in the air, though. Which means using less automation. This seems like the wrong way to go about it since it gives more chances for human error. It seems to me that the better solution would be more mandatory yearly simulation time with simulations focusing on how to properly handle auto pilot failures. That way, you keep the pilots in practice without making the passengers any less safe.
Slashdot Mirror
The first past the post voting system in America will always reinforce the two party setup we have. Third party voting can send a message in a lopsided election but in anything close, it's dangerous. It is arguably the reason we even had GWB in the first place. Gore probably would have won had he not lost so many votes to the Green party.
Of course, the ones in power are the ones benefiting most from this arrangement, so it's unlikely to change.
Have you tried classic.slashdot.org ? I always browse the desktop version of /. on my phone because of how epically bad the mobile version is. I dead the day that the beta website becomes standard. That's worse than windows 8 level fail.
This might be the worst "summary" I've ever seen on slashdot.
So THAT'S what really happened on 9/11! The government remote controlled the planes into the buildings and then remote detonated explosives inside!
By the sound of your message, I'm guessing you examine every open source operating system, encryption method, web browser, word processor, music player, image manipulator, etc etc that you use on your computer. Most people don't. However, there are tons of professional security researchers, professors, college students, and hobbyists that can and do. If you're sending messages using an open source protocol, you can't hide it. Someone will notice.
With an open source protocol, it becomes simple to create (and open-source) fire wall software specifically for these systems that blocks messages based on type, source, destination, etc. Don't want messages getting out that reveal what you're using? Filter them. Don't want someone messing with your blinds from outside your network? Stop those messages. If you want to make it simple for people, give them a slider that lets them set, for the entire network, how open or closed their system is.
A packaged security platform? An OS or email virus scanner has to check an arbitrary file and determine if the intent of that file is to harm you or if it's a legitimate tool you want installed. It's WAY more complicated than what this requires. With an open source protocol, we're talking about well-defined packets flowing from one device to another. A packet gets sent to your thermostat that says "Hey you! Turn on!". Don't want that to happen? Filter those messages. A reliable and open source firewall could easily be created along those lines.
As for people being stupid, I didn't realize we should stop all progress because some people are irresponsible. I guess we better turn off the internet, get rid of all computers, take away everyone's car... we should probably just roll back all technology to before man first created fire because, you know, someone could burn themselves. And besides, what's the penalty for being irresponsible here? Having to pay a larger electric bill? Big whoop.
Because they're firewall protected inside a LAN? Everything you described will earn the hacker exactly $0. A determined attacker stands to gain nothing from cracking your security and playing with your light switches. At best, you'll have to defend against bored script kiddies and that's not that hard.
If it's open source, you can examine the packets being sent by the device yourself. You're free to put the devices behind a firewall to prevent anything you don't want from getting in or out. TFA also mentions that the devices should be able to communicate with each other completely without the internet so you can just cut them off completely, if you want.
The devices are a part of a network like any other. Put them behind a default-deny firewall, strong password accessible only through some random high-numbered port. With an open protocol, it would be trivial to tie all of it together. Hackers stand to earn exactly $0 by playing with your light switches so all you're going to attract are trollish script-kiddies and they're not that hard to defend against.
I'm perfectly aware that these things already exist. The problem is that you have to buy 20 different proprietary apps that only let you control your devices in the way they want you to. The point of the proposal in TFA is that this no longer has to be the case.
I can't believe I'm reading stuff like this from people on Slashdot of all places.
Why can't my washing machine/dryer/microwave send my cellphone an alert when it's done and I'm in another room?
Why can't I turn on the lights at home from the grocery store so I don't have to carry my groceries in while it's dark?
Why can't I turn on the jacuzzi during a rough day at work so it's ready when I get home?
Why can't my DVD player turn off my lights and close my blinds when it's time to watch a movie and then turn the lights back on when I pause it to get a drink?
Why can't my refrigerator detect what's in it and suggest recipes and tell me what's expired?
Why can't I check to see if I forgot to turn the stove off after I left the house?
Why can't my sprinklers check the weather forcast and put off watering if it's supposed to rain?
Why can't my blinds and windows automatically open and close to regulate the temperature in the house?
There's no reason all of this couldn't be done. TFA describes something I've always thought was needed. If anyone was able to write software to communicate between the things in your house (and the price of automation went down), I think that the popularity of communications-enabled appliances would soar as developers opened up all of these possibilities and more.
Unfortunately, my mod points expired yesterday. The chilling effect on assembly is perhaps the primary concern with regards to the collection of metadata because the fourth amendment doesn't address whether or not the government can stalk you. It only says that the government can't search your persons, houses, papers, and effects without cause. The government stalking you does have a real chilling effect on who you choose to assemble with out of fear of government repercussion.
The 4th amendment is suppose to protect you from government search and seizure in your own premise.
Where does it say that? All I see is this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
It doesn't state where you have to be to get those rights. It doesn't say you can be secure in your houses only. It lists those other things (persons, papers, and effects) precisely so the government can't wait around for you to leave your house and then search you or your stuff.
**WARNING: SLIPPERY SLOPE DETECTOR ACTIVATED**
"No one forced you to use the train/subway/bus so of course they should be able to search you" (Already happening)
"No one forced you to drive on public roads so of course they should be able to search you" (They are working on deploying scanner tech for the roadside right now)
"No one forced you to use public sidewalks so of course they should be able to search you"
Uh. I guess I'll stay in my house?
I heard a story about a bunch of truckers who wanted to ride slowly around DC to block up the roads in protest. (I can't think of their names to provide a link). They most certainly considered it free speech despite the fact that the thousands of people behind them on the highway have no idea what's going on. I don't know if they ever went through with it. If they did, would they have been thrown in jail for a decade and fined for all of the financial damage it caused?
That parallel seems pretty clear to me.
There is an easier real world analogy than the one GP picked. If there's a city-wide riot and the police only are able to arrest a few people, do those few people have to pay for all of the damage done during the riot?
It's a difference in views. People view blocking a street as free speech. They see people staging a sit-in as trying to raise awareness for their cause and the send a message.
DDoS, on the other hand, they view as vandalism (unfathomably severe vandalism, if these prosecutors are to be believed).
Objectively, I don't see much of a difference between a sit-in and a DDoS but that might just be because I understand what a DDoS is. Most people don't.
That can't possibly be true. If free speech trumped copyright every time, there would be no copyright since it restricts my ability to copy and book and print it myself (which is considered speech).
What? How? Explain the context to me then. I've watched the entire video and the line means exactly what you'd expect.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Also, did you forget about the "You didn't build that" misquote? The line in context CLEARLY meant "You didn't build that infrastructure." Yet, the Republicans used the misquote as the theme of their damn national convention!
I've thought about this before too. The problem I foresee is with following the supply chain. What if another shell company does all of the dirty parts and sends the result to the company that does the final assembly in the same country? How do you follow a supply chain all the way back to the ore being pulled out of the ground when it changes hands a dozen times across multiple borders?
That's because the opposite of conservative is not liberal. The opposite of conservative is progressive (usually this describes their economic positions). The opposite of liberal is authoritarian (in terms of social policies). Having no knowledge of Germanic politics, I can't know for sure if this is what he means.
I was very disappointed to see that the Wikipedia article you linked was serious, and not a picture of two actual jaguars duct taped together. :(
You can. Not just local government offices, but local community centers. You can also call someone with the government over the phone to help you find insurance. Or, alternatively, you can get the information directly from the insurance companies (whom you have to sign up with anyway, even when using the website).
There's an intentional obfuscation of the situation here to try and equate the roll out of the website with the roll out of the law. They are not the same thing.
The summary states that the report calls for more manual flying in the air, though. Which means using less automation. This seems like the wrong way to go about it since it gives more chances for human error. It seems to me that the better solution would be more mandatory yearly simulation time with simulations focusing on how to properly handle auto pilot failures. That way, you keep the pilots in practice without making the passengers any less safe.
Por favor, ayúdame! Estoy fuera de las hamburguesas para comer y perdí mi bicicleta invisible!