That's... not how Javascript works. It's only possible to run "binaries" using Javascript if there's a major flaw in the interpreter, but this is true of non-programming language parsers like HTML and even JPEG too.
Yes, I'm sure you can point at some example of a specific browser's Javascript engine that allowed someone to execute their own x86 code. Likewise I can point at similar bugs in JPEG parsers. It has nothing to do with Javascript itself. Javascript's security issues aren't related to the occasional buffer overflow in an implementation of the string class, they're more due to Javascript's ability to access browser data and send it to places you wouldn't necessarily want it sent.
And to be clear: if a browser has a Javascript, HTML, or JPEG parsing bug right now that means an attacker can download and execute binary code, that's a major security issue REGARDLESS OF THIS INTEL BUG. Period. The Intel bug isn't going to add a whole lot of insecurity.
A question I have is is the patch optional? I'm not in the habit of running random binaries downloaded from the Internet, I suspect the chances of someone exploiting this on the computers I own is extremely low.
A 30% hit for virtually no security benefit in practice seems really bad to me.
This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone in the world thinks GNU/Linux is a perfect operating system, or even that Unix is the pinnacle of operating system design. If Google wants to try to create something better, that deserves applause. Even if they fail, we learn one more way how not to do it.
The good news is that even on the absolute first version of OS X, if you wanted to do anything that was outside the user home folder, or even with the user's keychain, it would ask for your password.
...yeah, about that. I didn't think that was a good idea either. At least not at the time, though again this might have been fixed by now, just like the Safari bug. Anywho, here's why:
The password thing was to verify that you had permission to allow something dangerous to occur. But in 99% of cases, you do have that permission. Realistically, it should only be asking you if you're not an admin. But wait, that's not my major complaint.
...no, my major complaint is that the user had no way at all of verifying that the thing they thought was asking for your password was the thing that was actually asking for your password. So, let's go back to 2002 (or whenever it was Safari came out, I can't remember.)
You write your Trojan and get it to your victim's hard drive. Victim clicks on a JPEG and it opens your application, and your application then starts the application the victim thinks should have opened it while going into the background.
After five minutes, you pop up something that looks exactly like the Software Update dialog. The user sees there's some minor, quick, update that's also very important, that needs to be run, so they click Update, and up pops the administrator password dialog.
And they enter the password. And now your application, which is what really put up both the Software Update and Password dialog, now has your password. And through that root access (via sudo) to your PC.
Like I said, they may have fixed this by now, but certainly in the first few revisions of the operating system, this was an awful idea awfully executed, against presumably because of a "Just works" mentality that worked against making it harder. Incredibly, Microsoft got this right: it doesn't generally ask for a password, instead: if you're logged in as an admin, it asks permission without needing to further verify it's you, and if you're not, it tells you to log in with sufficient rights.
Early on in Mac OS X's (as it was then) history, Apple released the very first version of Safari. At that point, thanks to the Jobs vision of "It just works" coupled with the way earlier Mac OSes had run, to install an application (including setting it up to open files of a particular type by default) you just needed to copy the application to your hard drive. Anywhere on the hard drive. It didn't matter where. The operating system would automatically set everything up.
(And, to be fair, that's not a bad way to work, except...)
Well, Safari would also open and extract any ZIP or.SIT (a Mac specific archive format) file if you downloaded it. Automatically. It woudn't ask you, it just assumed you wanted that. Because, remember, Steve Jobs, "It just works".
So to install an application on someone else's Mac, all you had to do was make your web page redirect to a ZIP file, containing the application. And if, say, you made that application open files with a common suffix, and you also send a file with that suffix, then the moment the curious user double clicked it, it'd launch your application.
It took months before everyone was able to persuade Apple this was a bad idea and a version of Safari was released that didn't automatically open Zip files.
Jobs had vision. But to infer from that he was security minded would be a mistake. He was interested in making computers easy to use, but security got in the way of that, and it took a long time before anyone inside or outside of Apple figured out how to make security easy to use as well.
He needs to be in prison. The police directly involved probably need to be in prison. The entire police force that those police were members of needs to be disbanded and replaced by an entirely different group of people, preferably trained by non-American policing experts.
And that needs to be the case everywhere until police killing innocent or blameless people stops. The police shouldn't be used as a weapon, and the police shouldn't be able to be used as a weapon.
This makes total sense. If I think someone might be a threat to others, but I'm really not sure, just killing them is a totally reasonable reaction.
(That's sarcasm BTW. It's not a reasonable reaction to just kill people because you heard from an unverified source they might be a threat to others. Honestly, I think we need to phase in a replacement police force throughout the country, containing nobody in the current system. I know there are honest, decent, police out there, but the last time I heard about a police officer refusing to shoot someone he could see wasn't a threat, it was because he was being fired for it.)
It would be 100% unconstitutional for Congress to pass a bill allowing the USPS to charge Amazon more than others. That's called a Bill of Attainer. At best Congress would have to pass a bill identifying a class of customers, but doing so is likely to cement Amazon's dominance, not reduce it, as it would impact all Amazon's competitors.
Also worth noting: just because the USPS makes a loss doesn't mean they make a loss on everything. Their contract with Amazon is almost certainly a major profit center: what do you think costs more to route:
* a letter with a handwritten address (and a 49c stamp) put in a mailbox on the opposite side of the country to where it needs to go, or
* a small package containing a book or some USB cables with a printed label, barcode, that's already been shipped to the nearest sorting facility to the destination? (And BTW the USPS is getting a dollar or more for)
Even accounting for storage costs, the former is obviously going to be more complex and require more human beings to manually process the letter, and thus far more expensive, despite getting the USPS far less in revenue.
I think the idea here is to allow circumvention in a specific case where fair use would apply.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but here's why that's a thing: Copyright law and the DMCA address things slightly differently. Copyright bans copying, period, but over time the courts have said there are certain defenses against copyright violation that apply for various reasons, one of which presumably is to stay on the right side of the constitution. Those defenses are called "Fair use". As an example, quoting something for the purposes of critiquing it is considered fair use.
Fair use does not mean you haven't violated copyright law, it just means the copyright holder can't stop you or get compensated.
The DMCA bans certain forms of technology (tools that circumvent what it refers to as Access Control Devices, IIRC, what you and I call DRM) including creating, distributing, and possession. There are no "fair use" defenses because the same technology that might allow you to copy a clip from a DVD so you can use it in a parody is the same as you'd use to copy the entire movie to your hard drive in preparation for distributing it to millions of anonymous strangers. You might intend to use it only in ways that wouldn't result in prosecution, but you possess it anyway.
So, the Copyright Office does carve out some exceptions to the DMCA to ensure that fair use is protected, it just doesn't do it automatically, people have to lobby for it.
So, no, asking for the authority of the copyright holder doesn't solve this problem. The copyright holder may well not want the content copied. That doesn't mean the film maker wouldn't, if they had the content in 35mm form, legally be able to copy it with or without the copyright holder's permission. The lobbying is to make sure this ability continues.
You can do that already by putting it in developer mode. The concept behind Chromebooks is that they're heavily sandboxed by default, so the environment is safe and you don't have to worry about viruses or other security issues (beyond those inherent in sharing your data with Google.) Android apps are relatively easy to fit into that idea, raw ix86 binaries not so much.
When you find yourself just making shit up that your hope might be true, it's best to just stop typing.
Indeed. Which half of Slashdot have done, by pretending that Rosenberg was trying to get banned.
Unless, of course, this is actually Rosenberg's/. account, you're just making assumptions that concur with your world view and then stating them as fact.
I read TFA, and I also have followed Rosenberg on Twitter for over a year now. I have absolutely no reason to believe he did it to get banned.
I would suggest you grow up. There is no aspect of this story that suggests Rosenberg created the bot for any reason other than to warn people about fake Jews, Muslims, etc. This is a real problem, and Twitter are not addressing it.
If you have a better way of handling it, that you think Rosenberg would have done if he wasn't supposedly acting in bad faith, then perhaps you'd like to tell us what it is? What solution, other than warning people automatically that they're conversing with artificial identities designed to smear members of a social, political, or religious group, will prevent people being taken in by those accounts?
That was, in German obviously, the Hitler Youth's slogan. A neo-nazi colleague of mine had the German words tattoo'd on his arms, hence me looking it up. Also what is "None of them wore swastikas -- that's a reference to Hitler's Germany, a sad romanticization of Hitler who (as we all know) lost the war and committed suicide." supposed to mean? Is Hitler not a Nazi all of a sudden?
Also, yeah, they wore jackboots. They're kind of famous for that actually. Camo pants on Nazis are a recent thing, though Nazis were really fond of militaristic trappings on their clothing, so I'm not surprised it's there, it's more or less an update. I'm not sure where the pilot jacket thing comes from. Shaved heads isn't universal amongst Nazis, now or then, but it dates back to the skinhead movement of which an off-shoot intermingled with Neo-Nazis for some reason.
Each of its aspects (white supremacy, racism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, violence for violence's sake, dismantling of the separation of powers, opposition to liberal democracy -- I could go on for quite a while longer!) is subject to scathing critique, which people such as yourself will fastidiously disregard because it applies to you in all but symbology.
This must the "I'm not a nazi, you're a nazi, so there, I win" school of thought. What about SM's comments make you think he's in favor of "white supremacy, racism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, violence for violence's sake, dismantling of the separation of powers, opposition to liberal democracy"? I've never seen him advocate any of that. Could it be that you made it up to make yourself feel better? I'm pretty certain that's it.
Everything you mention would be handled by a version of Mac OS that is designed for Lisa's hardware, correct? Which presumably is the version drinkypoo installed? So... what is there more to, exactly? Or are you suggesting he would have had to modify an operating system Apple had supplied with him specifically for this hardware?
The guy who wrote it should have known better, and he gets what he deserves for violating the terms of use. The journalist should absolutely know better, as most journalists are champions of first amendment rights, and attempting to squelch arbitrary twitter accounts through spambot posting because you don't like what they say is censorship and harassment at best. Would this journalist appreciate it if someone out there decided that they didn't like what he writes about, and decided to flood various Internet services that host his content with spambot garbage?
I have no idea what you're talking about. It's like you've invented a completely different thing to what's being discussed in the post, in order to support some gut feeling of dislike.
His bot warned people who were reading tweets from specific accounts that were presenting themselves as something that they were were not that those tweets were being made in bad faith.
That's not: "Squelching". It doesn't involve "Arbitrary twitter accounts". It's not "Spambot posting", and it certainly isn't "Censorship". It would be harassing if the accounts involved were actually good faith, but they weren't, they were Nazis pretending to be Jews, Muslims, left-wingers, etc.
What is your solution to the problem, if you're opposed to systems that warn others of bogus accounts? Or is your view that it doesn't matter, that if Neo Nazis want people to believe that Jews are OK with sizable amounts of what they do, that this is reasonable and unlikely to cause any damage.
You know what is squelching free speech? Shutting someone down for telling the truth. Tell me which is a case of that: shutting down a bot that warns people that certain twitter accounts are posting in bad faith, or warning people that certain twitter accounts post in bad faith.
Twitter's policy is about impersonating specific people, not about being dishonest about who you are. Falsely saying "I'm Yair Rosenberg, I agree with a lot of what Richard Spencer has to say" is against the rules. Falsely saying "I'm Jewish, but even I agree with a lot of what Richard Spencer has to say" isn't.
Rosenberg wasn't looking to be banned, he was looking for ways to automatically warn people that certain Twitter accounts claiming to be Jewish, Muslim, et al, posting hateful pro-Nazi content were not actually what they seemed. The bot wasn't harassing anyone, it was trying to fill a hole in Twitter's (somewhat awful) anti-abuse system by targeting a form of abuse Twitter doesn't address either directly or via its terms of service.
It's odd, to be honest, to read on Slashdot, where it's long been held reasonable and "freedom of speech" to encourage your followers to attack women who want to see more games aimed at them, knowing those followers will issue rape threats and other horrors, to hear that it isn't OK to impart information on Twitter about Twitter accounts that misrepresent themselves in order to slander the vulnerable.
I'm not sure what problem you're highlighting here. If you do no research you're far more likely to go against the evidence than someone who does the research. If you do the research and then go against the available evidence, well, you're an idiot.
Musk does seem to suffer from Dunning Kruger when it comes to transportation, but he's not an idiot overall.
That isn't that surprising, given Germany is a combination of West Germany, which has had a progressive, environmentally conscious, government since pretty much every other Western nation did, and East Germany, whose disastrous environmental policies are legendary. It takes time to recover from that kind of legacy.
It sounds to me like they're doing a pretty good job of it, see sibling posters.
To be more specific, the Mozilla team based their UI ideas on Chrome, GNOME 3, Windows 8, and other studies in bad user interface design, it's more of a conclusions of a set of studies in bad user interface design than a study in bad user interface design.
Some time ago we made it legal for people to not pay.
Nope. Never happened. Been GOP mantra for a while, "Oh, healthcare is already free! Everyone has the right to go to the ER and not pay!" they claim.
And it's not true.
If you go to the ER, you have the right to be treated regardless of whether you can pay the bill. That's it. That's not the same thing. All it means is that the hospital can't insist you have insurance, or run a credit check on you, before treatment.
If you don't have the money on you, they have the right to send you a bill. And you absolutely will owe the money on that bill. If you try to avoid paying, you will spend the rest of your life being hounded by debt collectors, you'll be subject to liens and wage garnishments. Your credit rating will be ruined.
Are hospitals having problems because of that policy? Why, yes! It costs money to go after people who can't pay, and obviously there are classes of people who'll never be able to pay, from the occasional illegal immigrant or other underclass member to, well, to name the obvious class of people who turn up at an ER and then can't pay, dead people.
The fix for that, BTW, is universal healthcare. Real universal healthcare. Make sure everyone who turns up at the ER has paid, through taxes or premiums, for the full costs of treatment ahead of time.
But here's a question: in the current world, what's the alternative?
If you turn up at the ER, and don't have documentation with you that can be linked to either a bank account or a valid insurance policy, should you be kicked out of the hospital? Should they leave you to die? Should they delay administering any treatment until you're able to identify yourself and your intended form of payment?
Because for all your huffing and puffing about deadbeats and "sheer stupidity", that's what this boils down to. Love the status quo as much as you like, but what you're proposing is death by bureaucrat.
Works fine for me. It's actually more integrated with Windows than UFW is - you can do things like "cmd/c start." from a bash prompt and Windows will open an Explorer window to view whatever directory you're in. Have it run OpenSSH and you can do things like remotely ssh in and shutdown or reboot the PC.
Cygwin's only major flaw is the lack of a proper package management system (you have to run a GUI tool outside of the Cygwin environment which only half works, and there are no automatic updates.)
UFW is more Unixy, but the price for that is a lack of good integration with the Windows side of the computer it's running under.
An advertising site serves ads. A tracking site tracks you.
To clarify:
Advert: a picture, movie, or some text, intended to impart a message not associated with the core article, that is there because someone paid for it to be shown.
Tracking: the act of determining a user's path through a website or collection of websites. Typically used by marketing departments to determine the success of a page in terms of keeping users engaged within a so-called 'funnel', a series of webpages that delivers a user to a store front, sometimes by UI designers and developers to debug usability issues.
That's what the article claims but I don't think that's correct either. I think the lazy dumb hacker will continue to use the most likely username, and will do that because the most likely username is the likely username. So in 99% of cases, it'll still offer no protection, even to a "lazy hacker".
We should probably use email addresses, and preferably federated 2FA authentication systems anyway. It's easier for the user, and means the security can be centralized.
Slashdot Mirror
That's... not how Javascript works. It's only possible to run "binaries" using Javascript if there's a major flaw in the interpreter, but this is true of non-programming language parsers like HTML and even JPEG too.
Yes, I'm sure you can point at some example of a specific browser's Javascript engine that allowed someone to execute their own x86 code. Likewise I can point at similar bugs in JPEG parsers. It has nothing to do with Javascript itself. Javascript's security issues aren't related to the occasional buffer overflow in an implementation of the string class, they're more due to Javascript's ability to access browser data and send it to places you wouldn't necessarily want it sent.
And to be clear: if a browser has a Javascript, HTML, or JPEG parsing bug right now that means an attacker can download and execute binary code, that's a major security issue REGARDLESS OF THIS INTEL BUG. Period. The Intel bug isn't going to add a whole lot of insecurity.
A question I have is is the patch optional? I'm not in the habit of running random binaries downloaded from the Internet, I suspect the chances of someone exploiting this on the computers I own is extremely low.
A 30% hit for virtually no security benefit in practice seems really bad to me.
This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone in the world thinks GNU/Linux is a perfect operating system, or even that Unix is the pinnacle of operating system design. If Google wants to try to create something better, that deserves applause. Even if they fail, we learn one more way how not to do it.
The password thing was to verify that you had permission to allow something dangerous to occur. But in 99% of cases, you do have that permission. Realistically, it should only be asking you if you're not an admin. But wait, that's not my major complaint.
You write your Trojan and get it to your victim's hard drive. Victim clicks on a JPEG and it opens your application, and your application then starts the application the victim thinks should have opened it while going into the background.
After five minutes, you pop up something that looks exactly like the Software Update dialog. The user sees there's some minor, quick, update that's also very important, that needs to be run, so they click Update, and up pops the administrator password dialog.
And they enter the password. And now your application, which is what really put up both the Software Update and Password dialog, now has your password. And through that root access (via sudo) to your PC.
Like I said, they may have fixed this by now, but certainly in the first few revisions of the operating system, this was an awful idea awfully executed, against presumably because of a "Just works" mentality that worked against making it harder. Incredibly, Microsoft got this right: it doesn't generally ask for a password, instead: if you're logged in as an admin, it asks permission without needing to further verify it's you, and if you're not, it tells you to log in with sufficient rights.
Early on in Mac OS X's (as it was then) history, Apple released the very first version of Safari. At that point, thanks to the Jobs vision of "It just works" coupled with the way earlier Mac OSes had run, to install an application (including setting it up to open files of a particular type by default) you just needed to copy the application to your hard drive. Anywhere on the hard drive. It didn't matter where. The operating system would automatically set everything up.
(And, to be fair, that's not a bad way to work, except...)
Well, Safari would also open and extract any ZIP or .SIT (a Mac specific archive format) file if you downloaded it. Automatically. It woudn't ask you, it just assumed you wanted that. Because, remember, Steve Jobs, "It just works".
So to install an application on someone else's Mac, all you had to do was make your web page redirect to a ZIP file, containing the application. And if, say, you made that application open files with a common suffix, and you also send a file with that suffix, then the moment the curious user double clicked it, it'd launch your application.
It took months before everyone was able to persuade Apple this was a bad idea and a version of Safari was released that didn't automatically open Zip files.
Jobs had vision. But to infer from that he was security minded would be a mistake. He was interested in making computers easy to use, but security got in the way of that, and it took a long time before anyone inside or outside of Apple figured out how to make security easy to use as well.
He needs to be in prison. The police directly involved probably need to be in prison. The entire police force that those police were members of needs to be disbanded and replaced by an entirely different group of people, preferably trained by non-American policing experts.
And that needs to be the case everywhere until police killing innocent or blameless people stops. The police shouldn't be used as a weapon, and the police shouldn't be able to be used as a weapon.
This makes total sense. If I think someone might be a threat to others, but I'm really not sure, just killing them is a totally reasonable reaction.
(That's sarcasm BTW. It's not a reasonable reaction to just kill people because you heard from an unverified source they might be a threat to others. Honestly, I think we need to phase in a replacement police force throughout the country, containing nobody in the current system. I know there are honest, decent, police out there, but the last time I heard about a police officer refusing to shoot someone he could see wasn't a threat, it was because he was being fired for it.)
It would be 100% unconstitutional for Congress to pass a bill allowing the USPS to charge Amazon more than others. That's called a Bill of Attainer. At best Congress would have to pass a bill identifying a class of customers, but doing so is likely to cement Amazon's dominance, not reduce it, as it would impact all Amazon's competitors.
Also worth noting: just because the USPS makes a loss doesn't mean they make a loss on everything. Their contract with Amazon is almost certainly a major profit center: what do you think costs more to route:
* a letter with a handwritten address (and a 49c stamp) put in a mailbox on the opposite side of the country to where it needs to go, or
* a small package containing a book or some USB cables with a printed label, barcode, that's already been shipped to the nearest sorting facility to the destination? (And BTW the USPS is getting a dollar or more for)
Even accounting for storage costs, the former is obviously going to be more complex and require more human beings to manually process the letter, and thus far more expensive, despite getting the USPS far less in revenue.
I think the idea here is to allow circumvention in a specific case where fair use would apply.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but here's why that's a thing: Copyright law and the DMCA address things slightly differently. Copyright bans copying, period, but over time the courts have said there are certain defenses against copyright violation that apply for various reasons, one of which presumably is to stay on the right side of the constitution. Those defenses are called "Fair use". As an example, quoting something for the purposes of critiquing it is considered fair use.
Fair use does not mean you haven't violated copyright law, it just means the copyright holder can't stop you or get compensated.
The DMCA bans certain forms of technology (tools that circumvent what it refers to as Access Control Devices, IIRC, what you and I call DRM) including creating, distributing, and possession. There are no "fair use" defenses because the same technology that might allow you to copy a clip from a DVD so you can use it in a parody is the same as you'd use to copy the entire movie to your hard drive in preparation for distributing it to millions of anonymous strangers. You might intend to use it only in ways that wouldn't result in prosecution, but you possess it anyway.
So, the Copyright Office does carve out some exceptions to the DMCA to ensure that fair use is protected, it just doesn't do it automatically, people have to lobby for it.
So, no, asking for the authority of the copyright holder doesn't solve this problem. The copyright holder may well not want the content copied. That doesn't mean the film maker wouldn't, if they had the content in 35mm form, legally be able to copy it with or without the copyright holder's permission. The lobbying is to make sure this ability continues.
You can do that already by putting it in developer mode. The concept behind Chromebooks is that they're heavily sandboxed by default, so the environment is safe and you don't have to worry about viruses or other security issues (beyond those inherent in sharing your data with Google.) Android apps are relatively easy to fit into that idea, raw ix86 binaries not so much.
Indeed. Which half of Slashdot have done, by pretending that Rosenberg was trying to get banned.
I read TFA, and I also have followed Rosenberg on Twitter for over a year now. I have absolutely no reason to believe he did it to get banned.
I would suggest you grow up. There is no aspect of this story that suggests Rosenberg created the bot for any reason other than to warn people about fake Jews, Muslims, etc. This is a real problem, and Twitter are not addressing it.
If you have a better way of handling it, that you think Rosenberg would have done if he wasn't supposedly acting in bad faith, then perhaps you'd like to tell us what it is? What solution, other than warning people automatically that they're conversing with artificial identities designed to smear members of a social, political, or religious group, will prevent people being taken in by those accounts?
That was, in German obviously, the Hitler Youth's slogan. A neo-nazi colleague of mine had the German words tattoo'd on his arms, hence me looking it up. Also what is "None of them wore swastikas -- that's a reference to Hitler's Germany, a sad romanticization of Hitler who (as we all know) lost the war and committed suicide." supposed to mean? Is Hitler not a Nazi all of a sudden?
Also, yeah, they wore jackboots. They're kind of famous for that actually. Camo pants on Nazis are a recent thing, though Nazis were really fond of militaristic trappings on their clothing, so I'm not surprised it's there, it's more or less an update. I'm not sure where the pilot jacket thing comes from. Shaved heads isn't universal amongst Nazis, now or then, but it dates back to the skinhead movement of which an off-shoot intermingled with Neo-Nazis for some reason.
This must the "I'm not a nazi, you're a nazi, so there, I win" school of thought. What about SM's comments make you think he's in favor of "white supremacy, racism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, violence for violence's sake, dismantling of the separation of powers, opposition to liberal democracy"? I've never seen him advocate any of that. Could it be that you made it up to make yourself feel better? I'm pretty certain that's it.
Everything you mention would be handled by a version of Mac OS that is designed for Lisa's hardware, correct? Which presumably is the version drinkypoo installed? So... what is there more to, exactly? Or are you suggesting he would have had to modify an operating system Apple had supplied with him specifically for this hardware?
I have no idea what you're talking about. It's like you've invented a completely different thing to what's being discussed in the post, in order to support some gut feeling of dislike.
His bot warned people who were reading tweets from specific accounts that were presenting themselves as something that they were were not that those tweets were being made in bad faith.
That's not: "Squelching". It doesn't involve "Arbitrary twitter accounts". It's not "Spambot posting", and it certainly isn't "Censorship". It would be harassing if the accounts involved were actually good faith, but they weren't, they were Nazis pretending to be Jews, Muslims, left-wingers, etc.
What is your solution to the problem, if you're opposed to systems that warn others of bogus accounts? Or is your view that it doesn't matter, that if Neo Nazis want people to believe that Jews are OK with sizable amounts of what they do, that this is reasonable and unlikely to cause any damage.
You know what is squelching free speech? Shutting someone down for telling the truth. Tell me which is a case of that: shutting down a bot that warns people that certain twitter accounts are posting in bad faith, or warning people that certain twitter accounts post in bad faith.
I'd say the former.
Twitter's policy is about impersonating specific people, not about being dishonest about who you are. Falsely saying "I'm Yair Rosenberg, I agree with a lot of what Richard Spencer has to say" is against the rules. Falsely saying "I'm Jewish, but even I agree with a lot of what Richard Spencer has to say" isn't.
Rosenberg wasn't looking to be banned, he was looking for ways to automatically warn people that certain Twitter accounts claiming to be Jewish, Muslim, et al, posting hateful pro-Nazi content were not actually what they seemed. The bot wasn't harassing anyone, it was trying to fill a hole in Twitter's (somewhat awful) anti-abuse system by targeting a form of abuse Twitter doesn't address either directly or via its terms of service.
It's odd, to be honest, to read on Slashdot, where it's long been held reasonable and "freedom of speech" to encourage your followers to attack women who want to see more games aimed at them, knowing those followers will issue rape threats and other horrors, to hear that it isn't OK to impart information on Twitter about Twitter accounts that misrepresent themselves in order to slander the vulnerable.
If the thermostat is downloading Bittorrents of recently released Hollywood movies, it might need more than 4Mbps.
I'm not sure what problem you're highlighting here. If you do no research you're far more likely to go against the evidence than someone who does the research. If you do the research and then go against the available evidence, well, you're an idiot.
Musk does seem to suffer from Dunning Kruger when it comes to transportation, but he's not an idiot overall.
That isn't that surprising, given Germany is a combination of West Germany, which has had a progressive, environmentally conscious, government since pretty much every other Western nation did, and East Germany, whose disastrous environmental policies are legendary. It takes time to recover from that kind of legacy.
It sounds to me like they're doing a pretty good job of it, see sibling posters.
Yeah but you have to live in Reading. The best thing you can say about Reading is that at least the train service to London is pretty decent.
To be more specific, the Mozilla team based their UI ideas on Chrome, GNOME 3, Windows 8, and other studies in bad user interface design, it's more of a conclusions of a set of studies in bad user interface design than a study in bad user interface design.
Nope. Never happened. Been GOP mantra for a while, "Oh, healthcare is already free! Everyone has the right to go to the ER and not pay!" they claim.
And it's not true.
If you go to the ER, you have the right to be treated regardless of whether you can pay the bill. That's it. That's not the same thing. All it means is that the hospital can't insist you have insurance, or run a credit check on you, before treatment.
If you don't have the money on you, they have the right to send you a bill. And you absolutely will owe the money on that bill. If you try to avoid paying, you will spend the rest of your life being hounded by debt collectors, you'll be subject to liens and wage garnishments. Your credit rating will be ruined.
Are hospitals having problems because of that policy? Why, yes! It costs money to go after people who can't pay, and obviously there are classes of people who'll never be able to pay, from the occasional illegal immigrant or other underclass member to, well, to name the obvious class of people who turn up at an ER and then can't pay, dead people.
The fix for that, BTW, is universal healthcare. Real universal healthcare. Make sure everyone who turns up at the ER has paid, through taxes or premiums, for the full costs of treatment ahead of time.
But here's a question: in the current world, what's the alternative?
If you turn up at the ER, and don't have documentation with you that can be linked to either a bank account or a valid insurance policy, should you be kicked out of the hospital? Should they leave you to die? Should they delay administering any treatment until you're able to identify yourself and your intended form of payment?
Because for all your huffing and puffing about deadbeats and "sheer stupidity", that's what this boils down to. Love the status quo as much as you like, but what you're proposing is death by bureaucrat.
Works fine for me. It's actually more integrated with Windows than UFW is - you can do things like "cmd /c start ." from a bash prompt and Windows will open an Explorer window to view whatever directory you're in. Have it run OpenSSH and you can do things like remotely ssh in and shutdown or reboot the PC.
Cygwin's only major flaw is the lack of a proper package management system (you have to run a GUI tool outside of the Cygwin environment which only half works, and there are no automatic updates.)
UFW is more Unixy, but the price for that is a lack of good integration with the Windows side of the computer it's running under.
Is this some kind of John Galt thing, or do you not actually know how to use Altavista?
(Continued on page 94)
An advertising site serves ads. A tracking site tracks you.
To clarify:
Advert: a picture, movie, or some text, intended to impart a message not associated with the core article, that is there because someone paid for it to be shown.
Tracking: the act of determining a user's path through a website or collection of websites. Typically used by marketing departments to determine the success of a page in terms of keeping users engaged within a so-called 'funnel', a series of webpages that delivers a user to a store front, sometimes by UI designers and developers to debug usability issues.
Does this help?
That's what the article claims but I don't think that's correct either. I think the lazy dumb hacker will continue to use the most likely username, and will do that because the most likely username is the likely username. So in 99% of cases, it'll still offer no protection, even to a "lazy hacker".
We should probably use email addresses, and preferably federated 2FA authentication systems anyway. It's easier for the user, and means the security can be centralized.