Passing laws that cannot or will not be enforced undermines the authority of the government.
If they tell me to do something. And I ignore them with impunity then they are weakened automatically.
If the government only passes laws that can and will be enforced then government law takes on a totally different meaning. It means "this is what is going to happen and this is how our society works"... Period. If they don't do that then what does law mean? Not a great deal. You have to factor in the police and regulatory agencies to see if they're able to close the gap somehow. But since by definition the law can't be enforced they'll just spin their wheels and waste resources. Thus undermining their power as well.
As to the whole weed argument. I agree. Look at the US prison system. Overloaded with people hauled in for smoking, selling, or growing pot. Why do we care? Do I need pot farmers in jail? Do I need pot dealers in jail? No. I don't need those people to be behind bars. Now... murderers? Rapists? Etc? Yeah... prison is a good idea. They pose a threat to the general public. And even say con artists have shown a willingness and ability to commit fraud or exploit people. But exactly how does selling contraband either pose a threat to the general public or exploit people? It does neither.
So yes, I agree the government has been passing stupid laws for a long time. But I disagree that they are wise to do so. Every time they do this it makes them weaker.
The war on drugs which you brought up here has weakened the US government. It has weakened its authority within our society... especially its moral authority. Laws and rules that might otherwise have been obeyed are entered into a growing list of rules that people "meh... obey" They might do it... they might not.
Never pass a law that won't be enforced or can't be enforced.
You cannot stop people from printing 3d guns anymore then you can stop someone from writing "I like purple poodles" in any old notebook with a ballpoint pen. Precisely how are you going to even know it happened in the first place?
So what does this law make illegal? Having an unlicensed weapon? Already illegal. Making your own gun? Already illegal.
Its an action utterly without meaning or relevance. If they want to stop 3d guns they're either going to have to have to enact a police state or invent a time machine. Short of that... get used to it.
I get you, its okay if the government leaks horribly but if a private corp drops the ball its a sign of their inherent evil.
Gotcha.
Sorry if that's rude but I have a low tolerance for double standards.
How about this, sport... How about neither leaks or is hacked or otherwise reveals state secrets? Does that work for you?
The level of incompetence we've seen from multiple parties within our society as regards computer security has been pathetic. Something needs to be done about it.
Here is my fix: Have the government hack its own systems and the systems of contractors to test security. Task the NSA with it. Part of the need for that is that we can't set universal standards because not everyone is using the same technology. So forget about universal standards. Make it empirical. Hack our own systems and then have the hackers explain to the security people how they got in. Incentive network penetrations so we don't get one department effectively paying off another to get a pass.
Is that the perfect solution? Probably not. But its the best I've got.
Listen. I am an American citizen and I do not want our secret whatever weapons plans stolen by ANYONE. We paid good tax money for those space lasers and trained velociraptor dragoons. I'd like to think we could actually go to war without all our wonderful toys being obsolete.
So why is the US government putting our top secret hush hush designs ON THE F"ING INTERNET LIKE DRUNKEN COEDS POSTING THEIR BOOBS ON FACEBOOK!
From here on out... lets just make a rule. If you're just straight up illiterate of computer science then do the universe a favor and don't get put in charge of computer ANYTHING. The degree of ignorance and incompetence out of government lately seems almost comical. Its as if the point is to illistrate that you're stupid. Is that what I'm to take from these events? I should hope not. Because if you can't be trusted with something as basic as keeping a few weapons plans secret then you're not capable of actually doing anything. Keeping a couple secrets is fundamental. Do it or its time to just dissolve the whole thing and start over.
You are embarrassing yourself and us by extension. Stop it. Are the Chinese spying on you? Do men look at a women that runs naked through a park? Put your damn clothes on.
The policy is that when they get too many people opting out they just send more people through the metal detector. No one opts out of the metal detector.
I've never been intentionally delayed by the TSA. They always deal with me pretty quickly. They're sometimes a little too touchy feely about it but its all over pretty fast.
I drive a stick shift transmission. Nothing automatic about it. I think my engine has some computer components in it, but I believe they're only logging data... and don't actually accomplish anything vital.
Point is, my car works. And I would trust it a great deal more then a Google driverless car for example. And I'll tell you further, that I've had fewer mechanical problems with my car then most of my friends and family with much more complicated systems.
When it comes to voting you need a zero fail system. An electronic system is FINE if not superior IF it is ZERO fail.
The primary issue I've seen with these electronic voting systems is that they're badly designed. Period.
A badly designed digital system is going to be inferior to a refined hand crank system.
Stop farming the design out to one of these companies. Hold an open competition. Make it national if you like. Offer a prize. Set realistic goals for the prize that both encompass everything you need and try to exclude things you either do not need or actually shouldn't have at all (eg individual voter tracking).
Do that and I'd be very much surprised if we didn't get something a great deal better then whatever we've been getting from these e-voting companies.
Had the fellow at the airport literally grab my penis last time. So yeah... that was uncomfortable. But that is how you ACTUALLY drives these machines out of the airport. Refuse to use them.
When the TSA finds that pat downs are not effective at forcing people into the scanners they'll let us walk through a metal detector and leave us alone.
Its not as if the xray machines have ever stopped a terrorist attack or likely ever will.
Do you know how you stop a terrorist attack? Know who is getting on the f'ing airplane. Its not that complicated. All the people that have later gone on to do some terrorist attack were on a terrorist watch list already.
Is it fair to profile someone WHO IS ALREADY on a terrorist watch list? That is, if you're on a terrorist watch list... would it be fair to pat YOU down or scan you you or whatever? Again, not simply because of race, national origin, or anything equally specious. But contacts and behavior consistent with someone plotting a terrorist attack.
And if someone is clever enough to stay off those lists while also intending a terrorist attack... do you really think an xray machine is going to stop them? Xray machines would stop a moron that would jam explosives up his sleeves without understanding how an xray machine works. You might claim it would deter a smarter attacker but really all you've done is force him to disguise the weapon or bomb as something else.
In the end, you're pitting the intelligence of someone clever enough to stay off the watch lists against a minimum wage government drone bored off his ass while he scans yet another person that he has no belief is a threat.
When you treat EVERYONE as a threat you threat NO ONE as a threat. You have to have targeted security. Enough passive security to deter morons and really a metal detector is more then sufficient to do that. And then the FBI and CIA need to keep useful lists for the few clever ones that might try something sneaky. And when one of the sneaky ones books a plane flight... they spend an extra 10 minutes in back room as someone gropes them for... whatever. Everyone else though... don't waste our time or dull edge of your security by pretending we're a threat when we're not.
The value of electric cars is not that they have lower emissions but that they grant the user more freedom in how they power their car.
A gasoline car must be filled with gasoline. Sources for that are gasoline stations which are themselves supplied by national refineries which are themselves supplied by the global petroleum industry. Costs for gasoline have more then doubled over the last few years in the United States and we are continually seeing pressure on the refineries which will cause those prices to go up further. Why use gas if you don't have to use it?
Electric power is generated from a much wider set of sources. Hydroelectric power, Coal, Nuclear, solar, geothermal, wind, etc. Many sources. And any as compatible with the electric car as the last. No bottleneck in production.
The problem with the electric car is how storing the power in the car. Gasoline is a very stable, compact, and potent source of power. A mass equivalent electric storage system does not exist in a consumer price point. And THAT is a problem for the electric car which must be solved. But once that is solved, the argument for electric power will be energy freedom.
It will be that one could have solar power panels on one's roof and literally charge their car for work.
The emissions argument is meaningless for and against electric cars.
People some twit finds it inconvenient to isolate the information.
What is likely going on is that there is a network at one of the design facilities where the files are exchanged around. That's reasonable. But then what they did was link that network to the internet at large because how else are you going to get email or post on facebook.
We can all cite a dozen ways to make this a more secure system but they didn't. They wanted to eat their cake and have it too.
I suppose it depends on which river you're talking about. There might be some place where you could make that argument. But the quality of our rivers has dramatically improved.
I say this knowing you're probably another slippery goal post mover. So I don't really expect a reasonable counter argument from you. But for the record, it happened... and for that reason several of the founding member of green peace broke with the organization since because its goal was accomplished.
I'm not going to bother getting into some asinine "yes it is! No it isn't!" argument with you. That's my position. And if you want to think less of me for being aware of reality... Oh well.
Demonstrate that we don't need that power by lowering local power consumption to such an extent that the dam's power is redundant and that's a reasonable idea.
But destroying the dam PRIOR to that being demonstrated with no agreed upon fall back option is a non-starter.
You don't screw with water, food, or power. You mess with basic utilities and destroy communities or possibly get people killed.
I understand what you're saying. They're unreasonable pie eyed flakes. Set them some very reasonable standards to meet that they'll fail to meet but can't credibly dismiss. That is how you control flaky people.
These organizations likely did accomplish something in their early history. But what does an activist group do when its won? Does it disband and go back to their day jobs? No. They just move their platform to the next radical step... something far enough out that no one will ever accept it... and in taking that insane position they ensure that they'll always have something to complain about.
its like if you started an organization to outlaw child porn or something and once that was accomplished you moved to regular pornography and then to just any lewd behavior in media and then went so far as to try and outlaw holding hands or any public display of affection.
That's pretty much exactly what happened to Greenpeace. Everything Greenpeace asked for when it was founded has been granted. They won. Everyone ultimately agreed with them. Little things like "lets not put poison in the river" or "hey, how about we filter those smoke stacks"... Well, mission accomplished. Then Greenpeace basically started asking for the total abolition of the modern world... and of course that isn't going to happen. So Greenpeace has something to gripe about. But its that creep towards the radical fridge as they get what they want.
PETA is likely similar. We treat farm animals better then we used to treat them. Animals certainly do have more rights then they did before. Not many of course. But there's been some movement on the subject. Anything reasonable is debatable. But we're not going to stop experimenting on animals in medical studies. That sort of science saves lives. Your life. Your children's lives. Someone gets in the way of that and you shove them out of the way without a word and carry on. No argument. Same thing for food. We're not all shifting over to Tofu. The Vegis and Vegans might as well get over it.
You're not taking security seriously and you deserve to be embarrassed repeatedly until you do or fail so spectacularly that no one ever trusts you again with anything.
Its a big issue in the US as well. Old government agencies and shotty IT.
You're not paranoid enough. You're literally paid to be paranoid and you're not doing your job. Its disgusting. Wake up and realize if you don't assume worst case you'll always be playing catch up.
I can only imagine its some out of touch half drunk twits that sign checks at cocktail parties so attractive but vapid people can pretend to like them.
Who is honestly proud of anything PETA has done? They have no impact on the society. So at best they're failures. At worst... Oh god, does it get bad.
They were sort of funny when they threw red ink on socialites wearing fur coats but then they went after people's pets and BACON!... there's no coming back from that.
Exactly. I use noscript all the time. Most sites I don't white list at all because there's no need to give them access to javascript. Most sites only use javascript for ads or flash. Some will use it for database integration. But since I mostly go to sites to read information in basic HTML there's no reason I need to white list things. Heck, typically when I download stuff javascript is also not required.
I whitelist slashdot, places I buy stuff, my bank, youtube, and other similar services. If you're not one of those things then I don't need to white list you whether you're valid or not.
And for sites that I'm not totally sure of... I do a temporary approval which gets expunged later. And even when I do white list a site, there are typically other domains that are called by that site with their own javascript. I basically never white list those sites which menas their code doesn't run.
Does that make monitizing webtraffic more difficult? Yes. But the javascript ad click system is a security hole and the ad venders have frequently abused my tolerance by sending me pop-ups or obnoxious animated gifs that have neon flashy lights or loading flash movies that use up a lot of bandwidth and always have sound... Sorry. Its annoying. If you want me to load your stuff you need to not offend me. Which means not choosing colors that make my eyes bleed. Not loading bandwidth hogging movies. Not having sound default on. And generally respecting the fact that you load at my sufferance. Irritate me and you get blocked. Period.
I think going full VM is over kill. Just wrap it in a plastic bag. Give it the impression of interacting with a lot of things but don't actually let it effect anything that can compromise the system.
Where did I say you could buy authorization on the whitelist just by sending some mindless system 20 dollars?
Oh that's right... I didn't.
Kindly don't insert your strawmen into my arguments. All you're really saying is "an idea I just came up with is stupid!"... Well okay... but its your idea then... not mine.
Just throw a cartoon at them. If you make the list of whitelisted applications expansive enough then its unlikely that people will see it very often.
We could even crowdsource the white lists. Work out something so if enough people with the right level of trust click YES to something it gets added to the global lists.
1. I'm not going to argue with you about operating systems.
2. As to there already being whitelisting programs, I don't disagree. But that doesn't actually change my point. Furthermore, most of the major AV companies are moving away from blacklisting because they agree with me and my point. Everyone from Symantec to AVG is moving to blacklisting. Some failures in the technology are nothing to the failures in blacklisting which has failed far more often and far more spectacularly. The only advantage to blacklisting is that things are passively allowed instead of passively denied. The reality is that at this point its harder to work out what is invalid then what is valid. Which is why white listing makes a great deal more sense.
3. As to java and java script, none of that really matters since in all cases its really f'ing simple to white list both java and javascript code. There are a few plugins in fact for firefox that will whitelist javascript. And regardless we can sandbox those programs no problem if that's really going to be an ongoing issue. Really, javascript is just too expansive and needs to be a more limited language. Or the browsers themselves just have to have a more limited interpretation of it. Heck, the browsers could natively sandbox it by default.
As to limited numbers of applications. The vast number of virus victims only use a very small number of applications. Often fewer then 5 TOTAL. That is the average user. Make the average user almost impossible to target and right there it will be RADICALLY harder for viruses to proliferate.
And even if we say that everyone needs to use odd programs that the AV companies have never seen before, they can still be white listed locally if you really must. The point is that is the average user doesn't know what that program is they should be encouraged to not grant that authority. And if library of applications is wide enough they shouldn't even be in that position unless they're using something really old or really odd.
1. The iphone thing was just an example of a default white list system. It is a computer. I can literally run windows XP on an android and the iphone is easily as powerful. So its as much a computer as anything.
2. I was not suggesting it be done the same way as the itunes system. I hate itunes too. The point was to control application access through a white list system.
3. Browsers and office suites can do the same thing with the white listing. Certain websites with certain bits of java code would be allowed. Code not approved on sites not approved would not be able to run it. Same thing for some of the hacks involving excel spreed sheets or access databases. Permit the ones known to be good, allow the user to allow ones they know are good, but otherwise deny them code privileges.
Beyond all that, we should have more sandboxing.
The program "sandboxie" is quite popular. Make that a more standard feature of most programs and operating systems so that while code might be allowed to run it isn't actually given control over anything. It THINKS it has control and it can access a facsimile for whatever it wants but actual drivers, system settings, and file system assets remain unchanged.
Slashdot Mirror
Passing laws that cannot or will not be enforced undermines the authority of the government.
If they tell me to do something. And I ignore them with impunity then they are weakened automatically.
If the government only passes laws that can and will be enforced then government law takes on a totally different meaning. It means "this is what is going to happen and this is how our society works"... Period. If they don't do that then what does law mean? Not a great deal. You have to factor in the police and regulatory agencies to see if they're able to close the gap somehow. But since by definition the law can't be enforced they'll just spin their wheels and waste resources. Thus undermining their power as well.
As to the whole weed argument. I agree. Look at the US prison system. Overloaded with people hauled in for smoking, selling, or growing pot. Why do we care? Do I need pot farmers in jail? Do I need pot dealers in jail? No. I don't need those people to be behind bars. Now... murderers? Rapists? Etc? Yeah... prison is a good idea. They pose a threat to the general public. And even say con artists have shown a willingness and ability to commit fraud or exploit people. But exactly how does selling contraband either pose a threat to the general public or exploit people? It does neither.
So yes, I agree the government has been passing stupid laws for a long time. But I disagree that they are wise to do so. Every time they do this it makes them weaker.
The war on drugs which you brought up here has weakened the US government. It has weakened its authority within our society... especially its moral authority. Laws and rules that might otherwise have been obeyed are entered into a growing list of rules that people "meh... obey" They might do it... they might not.
Never pass a law that won't be enforced or can't be enforced.
You cannot stop people from printing 3d guns anymore then you can stop someone from writing "I like purple poodles" in any old notebook with a ballpoint pen. Precisely how are you going to even know it happened in the first place?
So what does this law make illegal? Having an unlicensed weapon? Already illegal. Making your own gun? Already illegal.
Its an action utterly without meaning or relevance. If they want to stop 3d guns they're either going to have to have to enact a police state or invent a time machine. Short of that... get used to it.
If he's brave or brave and stupid.
I hope he survives this... but there are a lot of knives being sharpened.
I get you, its okay if the government leaks horribly but if a private corp drops the ball its a sign of their inherent evil.
Gotcha.
Sorry if that's rude but I have a low tolerance for double standards.
How about this, sport... How about neither leaks or is hacked or otherwise reveals state secrets? Does that work for you?
The level of incompetence we've seen from multiple parties within our society as regards computer security has been pathetic. Something needs to be done about it.
Here is my fix: Have the government hack its own systems and the systems of contractors to test security. Task the NSA with it. Part of the need for that is that we can't set universal standards because not everyone is using the same technology. So forget about universal standards. Make it empirical. Hack our own systems and then have the hackers explain to the security people how they got in. Incentive network penetrations so we don't get one department effectively paying off another to get a pass.
Is that the perfect solution? Probably not. But its the best I've got.
Actually, I've seen quite a few leaks from the Department of energy... just nuclear bomb plans. Nothing to worry about folks. Move alone.
Listen. I am an American citizen and I do not want our secret whatever weapons plans stolen by ANYONE. We paid good tax money for those space lasers and trained velociraptor dragoons. I'd like to think we could actually go to war without all our wonderful toys being obsolete.
So why is the US government putting our top secret hush hush designs ON THE F"ING INTERNET LIKE DRUNKEN COEDS POSTING THEIR BOOBS ON FACEBOOK!
From here on out... lets just make a rule. If you're just straight up illiterate of computer science then do the universe a favor and don't get put in charge of computer ANYTHING. The degree of ignorance and incompetence out of government lately seems almost comical. Its as if the point is to illistrate that you're stupid. Is that what I'm to take from these events? I should hope not. Because if you can't be trusted with something as basic as keeping a few weapons plans secret then you're not capable of actually doing anything. Keeping a couple secrets is fundamental. Do it or its time to just dissolve the whole thing and start over.
You are embarrassing yourself and us by extension. Stop it. Are the Chinese spying on you? Do men look at a women that runs naked through a park? Put your damn clothes on.
Actually they already blinked on this issue.
The policy is that when they get too many people opting out they just send more people through the metal detector. No one opts out of the metal detector.
I've never been intentionally delayed by the TSA. They always deal with me pretty quickly. They're sometimes a little too touchy feely about it but its all over pretty fast.
I drive a stick shift transmission. Nothing automatic about it. I think my engine has some computer components in it, but I believe they're only logging data... and don't actually accomplish anything vital.
Point is, my car works. And I would trust it a great deal more then a Google driverless car for example. And I'll tell you further, that I've had fewer mechanical problems with my car then most of my friends and family with much more complicated systems.
When it comes to voting you need a zero fail system. An electronic system is FINE if not superior IF it is ZERO fail.
The primary issue I've seen with these electronic voting systems is that they're badly designed. Period.
A badly designed digital system is going to be inferior to a refined hand crank system.
Stop farming the design out to one of these companies. Hold an open competition. Make it national if you like. Offer a prize. Set realistic goals for the prize that both encompass everything you need and try to exclude things you either do not need or actually shouldn't have at all (eg individual voter tracking).
Do that and I'd be very much surprised if we didn't get something a great deal better then whatever we've been getting from these e-voting companies.
Pat me down.
Had the fellow at the airport literally grab my penis last time. So yeah... that was uncomfortable. But that is how you ACTUALLY drives these machines out of the airport. Refuse to use them.
When the TSA finds that pat downs are not effective at forcing people into the scanners they'll let us walk through a metal detector and leave us alone.
Its not as if the xray machines have ever stopped a terrorist attack or likely ever will.
Do you know how you stop a terrorist attack? Know who is getting on the f'ing airplane. Its not that complicated. All the people that have later gone on to do some terrorist attack were on a terrorist watch list already.
Is it fair to profile someone WHO IS ALREADY on a terrorist watch list? That is, if you're on a terrorist watch list... would it be fair to pat YOU down or scan you you or whatever? Again, not simply because of race, national origin, or anything equally specious. But contacts and behavior consistent with someone plotting a terrorist attack.
And if someone is clever enough to stay off those lists while also intending a terrorist attack... do you really think an xray machine is going to stop them? Xray machines would stop a moron that would jam explosives up his sleeves without understanding how an xray machine works. You might claim it would deter a smarter attacker but really all you've done is force him to disguise the weapon or bomb as something else.
In the end, you're pitting the intelligence of someone clever enough to stay off the watch lists against a minimum wage government drone bored off his ass while he scans yet another person that he has no belief is a threat.
When you treat EVERYONE as a threat you threat NO ONE as a threat. You have to have targeted security. Enough passive security to deter morons and really a metal detector is more then sufficient to do that. And then the FBI and CIA need to keep useful lists for the few clever ones that might try something sneaky. And when one of the sneaky ones books a plane flight... they spend an extra 10 minutes in back room as someone gropes them for... whatever. Everyone else though... don't waste our time or dull edge of your security by pretending we're a threat when we're not.
Because it doesn't matter.
The value of electric cars is not that they have lower emissions but that they grant the user more freedom in how they power their car.
A gasoline car must be filled with gasoline. Sources for that are gasoline stations which are themselves supplied by national refineries which are themselves supplied by the global petroleum industry. Costs for gasoline have more then doubled over the last few years in the United States and we are continually seeing pressure on the refineries which will cause those prices to go up further. Why use gas if you don't have to use it?
Electric power is generated from a much wider set of sources. Hydroelectric power, Coal, Nuclear, solar, geothermal, wind, etc. Many sources. And any as compatible with the electric car as the last. No bottleneck in production.
The problem with the electric car is how storing the power in the car. Gasoline is a very stable, compact, and potent source of power. A mass equivalent electric storage system does not exist in a consumer price point. And THAT is a problem for the electric car which must be solved. But once that is solved, the argument for electric power will be energy freedom.
It will be that one could have solar power panels on one's roof and literally charge their car for work.
The emissions argument is meaningless for and against electric cars.
I use it all the time. Very few sites are allowed to run javascript at all.
People some twit finds it inconvenient to isolate the information.
What is likely going on is that there is a network at one of the design facilities where the files are exchanged around. That's reasonable. But then what they did was link that network to the internet at large because how else are you going to get email or post on facebook.
We can all cite a dozen ways to make this a more secure system but they didn't. They wanted to eat their cake and have it too.
Actually we're not.
I suppose it depends on which river you're talking about. There might be some place where you could make that argument. But the quality of our rivers has dramatically improved.
I say this knowing you're probably another slippery goal post mover. So I don't really expect a reasonable counter argument from you. But for the record, it happened... and for that reason several of the founding member of green peace broke with the organization since because its goal was accomplished.
I'm not going to bother getting into some asinine "yes it is! No it isn't!" argument with you. That's my position. And if you want to think less of me for being aware of reality... Oh well.
No problem.
Demonstrate that we don't need that power by lowering local power consumption to such an extent that the dam's power is redundant and that's a reasonable idea.
But destroying the dam PRIOR to that being demonstrated with no agreed upon fall back option is a non-starter.
You don't screw with water, food, or power. You mess with basic utilities and destroy communities or possibly get people killed.
I understand what you're saying. They're unreasonable pie eyed flakes. Set them some very reasonable standards to meet that they'll fail to meet but can't credibly dismiss. That is how you control flaky people.
Easy answer. Tell them to come up with a way to get the power that they'll sign off on.
Those groups are really big of gainsaying things that work. But very thin on what plan B is supposed to be...
So what?... What has she accomplished lately?
These organizations likely did accomplish something in their early history. But what does an activist group do when its won? Does it disband and go back to their day jobs? No. They just move their platform to the next radical step... something far enough out that no one will ever accept it... and in taking that insane position they ensure that they'll always have something to complain about.
its like if you started an organization to outlaw child porn or something and once that was accomplished you moved to regular pornography and then to just any lewd behavior in media and then went so far as to try and outlaw holding hands or any public display of affection.
That's pretty much exactly what happened to Greenpeace. Everything Greenpeace asked for when it was founded has been granted. They won. Everyone ultimately agreed with them. Little things like "lets not put poison in the river" or "hey, how about we filter those smoke stacks"... Well, mission accomplished. Then Greenpeace basically started asking for the total abolition of the modern world... and of course that isn't going to happen. So Greenpeace has something to gripe about. But its that creep towards the radical fridge as they get what they want.
PETA is likely similar. We treat farm animals better then we used to treat them. Animals certainly do have more rights then they did before. Not many of course. But there's been some movement on the subject. Anything reasonable is debatable. But we're not going to stop experimenting on animals in medical studies. That sort of science saves lives. Your life. Your children's lives. Someone gets in the way of that and you shove them out of the way without a word and carry on. No argument. Same thing for food. We're not all shifting over to Tofu. The Vegis and Vegans might as well get over it.
You're not taking security seriously and you deserve to be embarrassed repeatedly until you do or fail so spectacularly that no one ever trusts you again with anything.
Its a big issue in the US as well. Old government agencies and shotty IT.
You're not paranoid enough. You're literally paid to be paranoid and you're not doing your job. Its disgusting. Wake up and realize if you don't assume worst case you'll always be playing catch up.
I can only imagine its some out of touch half drunk twits that sign checks at cocktail parties so attractive but vapid people can pretend to like them.
Who is honestly proud of anything PETA has done? They have no impact on the society. So at best they're failures. At worst... Oh god, does it get bad.
They were sort of funny when they threw red ink on socialites wearing fur coats but then they went after people's pets and BACON!... there's no coming back from that.
Exactly. I use noscript all the time. Most sites I don't white list at all because there's no need to give them access to javascript. Most sites only use javascript for ads or flash. Some will use it for database integration. But since I mostly go to sites to read information in basic HTML there's no reason I need to white list things. Heck, typically when I download stuff javascript is also not required.
I whitelist slashdot, places I buy stuff, my bank, youtube, and other similar services. If you're not one of those things then I don't need to white list you whether you're valid or not.
And for sites that I'm not totally sure of... I do a temporary approval which gets expunged later. And even when I do white list a site, there are typically other domains that are called by that site with their own javascript. I basically never white list those sites which menas their code doesn't run.
Does that make monitizing webtraffic more difficult? Yes. But the javascript ad click system is a security hole and the ad venders have frequently abused my tolerance by sending me pop-ups or obnoxious animated gifs that have neon flashy lights or loading flash movies that use up a lot of bandwidth and always have sound... Sorry. Its annoying. If you want me to load your stuff you need to not offend me. Which means not choosing colors that make my eyes bleed. Not loading bandwidth hogging movies. Not having sound default on. And generally respecting the fact that you load at my sufferance. Irritate me and you get blocked. Period.
I think going full VM is over kill. Just wrap it in a plastic bag. Give it the impression of interacting with a lot of things but don't actually let it effect anything that can compromise the system.
Where did I say you could buy authorization on the whitelist just by sending some mindless system 20 dollars?
Oh that's right... I didn't.
Kindly don't insert your strawmen into my arguments. All you're really saying is "an idea I just came up with is stupid!"... Well okay... but its your idea then... not mine.
Easy solution. Warn them with a cartoon.
How do you think we tell people that something is poison?
http://tabzified.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/poison_sign.gif?w=520&h=539
Just throw a cartoon at them. If you make the list of whitelisted applications expansive enough then its unlikely that people will see it very often.
We could even crowdsource the white lists. Work out something so if enough people with the right level of trust click YES to something it gets added to the global lists.
1. I'm not going to argue with you about operating systems.
2. As to there already being whitelisting programs, I don't disagree. But that doesn't actually change my point. Furthermore, most of the major AV companies are moving away from blacklisting because they agree with me and my point. Everyone from Symantec to AVG is moving to blacklisting. Some failures in the technology are nothing to the failures in blacklisting which has failed far more often and far more spectacularly. The only advantage to blacklisting is that things are passively allowed instead of passively denied. The reality is that at this point its harder to work out what is invalid then what is valid. Which is why white listing makes a great deal more sense.
3. As to java and java script, none of that really matters since in all cases its really f'ing simple to white list both java and javascript code. There are a few plugins in fact for firefox that will whitelist javascript. And regardless we can sandbox those programs no problem if that's really going to be an ongoing issue. Really, javascript is just too expansive and needs to be a more limited language. Or the browsers themselves just have to have a more limited interpretation of it. Heck, the browsers could natively sandbox it by default.
As to limited numbers of applications. The vast number of virus victims only use a very small number of applications. Often fewer then 5 TOTAL. That is the average user. Make the average user almost impossible to target and right there it will be RADICALLY harder for viruses to proliferate.
And even if we say that everyone needs to use odd programs that the AV companies have never seen before, they can still be white listed locally if you really must. The point is that is the average user doesn't know what that program is they should be encouraged to not grant that authority. And if library of applications is wide enough they shouldn't even be in that position unless they're using something really old or really odd.
1. The iphone thing was just an example of a default white list system. It is a computer. I can literally run windows XP on an android and the iphone is easily as powerful. So its as much a computer as anything.
2. I was not suggesting it be done the same way as the itunes system. I hate itunes too. The point was to control application access through a white list system.
3. Browsers and office suites can do the same thing with the white listing. Certain websites with certain bits of java code would be allowed. Code not approved on sites not approved would not be able to run it. Same thing for some of the hacks involving excel spreed sheets or access databases. Permit the ones known to be good, allow the user to allow ones they know are good, but otherwise deny them code privileges.
Beyond all that, we should have more sandboxing.
The program "sandboxie" is quite popular. Make that a more standard feature of most programs and operating systems so that while code might be allowed to run it isn't actually given control over anything. It THINKS it has control and it can access a facsimile for whatever it wants but actual drivers, system settings, and file system assets remain unchanged.