Why is this a surprise? Any software can *see* what you are doing. That is why you run closed source software at your own risk. You have zero idea what it could be doing. The only closed source software I use is the HOST FILES ENGINE by Apk.
Yes, because that's guaranteed not to contain a Trojan. He has told us so many times to trust him and his software that he must be trustworthy.
they are called hashes, and have been used forever. google doesn't need to store user passwords in their database or transmit them over the wire at all. google simply stores a hash of the username+password combination. when you enter credentials, that same hash is generated locally, then the resulting hash is transmitted over the wire and checked against the database. this is trivial to implement these days.
True, but "doesn't need to" does not equal "won't".
The correct way to go about it would be to advise users if their password is on known data breaches whether it is associated with the username or not. Otherwise this extension could be used to mine credentials out of whatever database google is using.
Indeed; I don't want to give Chrome my username or credentials. Granted, it could scrape my username when I log in places, but I'm assuming that is too low, even for Google.
That's not entirely true. Certain niche's are off-limits. For example "face sitting", the act of a "dominant" woman sitting on the face of a man to receive pleasuring is not legal to be filmed or watched in the UK
The government takes the profits of the Crown Estate, it doesn't own it. End that deal and the monarch gets the profits back - it's a net loss to the UK taxpayer.
That's a common misconception. Since 1760 the monarch hasn't owned it.
The Crown Estate belongs to the British people "in the name of the monarch" (basically to save face it kept the name). George III ran up a lot of debts and parliament bailed him out in exchange for the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate belongs to the people of Britain now. Her Majesty occupies certain parts of the Crown Estate on the whims of the people. She does outright own a lot of estates herself though.
It's probably not a bad idea to have one of the worse offenders actively involved in trying to find a solution.
You say that as if anyone sent by Sudan would actually care about finding a solution.
I'm an optimist and hope for the best in people. You're right, depending on who they send it could be ineffective, but I have noticed that people tend to live up to the expectations you set for them.
If you expect someone to be dishonest, they will lie to you; if you treat someone as if they're honest they tend to be more trustworthy. I would hope psychologically, putting someone in the position to end human abuses would make them more inclined to seek out that solution.
Doesn't always work, but treating someone as if they're responsible and worthwhile usually is more likely to make them act that way.
It's probably not a bad idea to have one of the worse offenders actively involved in trying to find a solution.
On the other hand.
It's similar to putting a mobster in the white house. How is that experiment going?
The correct analogy would be if a mobster was an advisor to the President. (not a mobster being the President). A mobster could give interesting advice to the President. Naturally, if you put the mobster in charge of the country it would cause chaos, government might even shut down.
It's all in how it is regulated and how it is used. Like any technology, whether this is a net-positive or a net-negative for the world isn't immediately obvious. I could easily see this being used to persecute minorities OR to genuinely help lessen crime.
Who is going to regulate how the police use this though- and what they can get away with?
So, police forces in the UK are using Chinese technology to further spy on their citizens.
Apparently having a Queen makes you stupid enough to stand for this shit.
Sorry, the old hag is on my money, but she and her clan can die in a fire or fuck the hell off.
They'll never have any actual freedom as long as people believe the bullshit that the royals are somehow special.
Well, first off, UK spying on their citizens isn't anything new. Britain's high streets have been under the eye of cameras for decades now. You almost have to assume if you're outside on a street in Britain that at least one camera is recording you.
As for "real freedom" that's fairly subjective based on what you consider freedom to be. There probably isn't any country in the world that everyone would say is a perfect bastion of freedom- because it's a precarious balance. Some would consider the US to be less free with it's lack of representative vote (electoral system), a political system that is biased towards a two party system, lack of an unbiased media (everything leans one way or the other to a degree), world's highest incarceration rate, lack of egalitarian education or health systems. (wealthy areas have much better schools, and rich people get better care). Lots of "morality laws" based on drugs, alcohol, sexual morality.
As for the Queen, yeah, I'm against her too, or at least her receiving tax payer money. Many will bring up the strawmen of tourists and the Crown Estate as reasons to keep the Queen; as if, making her a private citizen and not receiving public money would stop the tourists coming. And as for the Crown Estate, it is owned by the people of the UK. Government took over responsibility of the Crown Estate in exchange for taking over some of the debts that the royal family had run up. The Crown Estate does not belong to the person wearing the Crown. (The Queen does have substantial wealth and holdings of her own though that are separate to the Crown Estate).
All that said, the Queen has no impact on "Freedom" in the UK. She has very little power to impact the world for reasons of Good or Evil.
Plenty could, because they didn't have as much pigfat. Ever driven an 80s or 90s Corolla or Civic?
I owned an 89 Corolla, my first car in fact. It had pretty decent efficiency for it's time. I averaged about 30mpg, which is about 10mpg less than I average in my little Honda Fit today and slightly less than my wife's SUV today.
I had a problem with that statement. That's a pretty impossible statement to make. We don't even know what will happen in a generation, or two generations. To say "it will never end" is absurdist.
Be like Bill Gates, his miles long driveway is a heated, ice/snow free one.
Good idea. I will become a billionaire. Why hadn't I thought of that before? Now, if each of you can give me a few hundred thousand $$$$, I will achieve my aim.
Mid 90s cars (assuming you're in the US and own a non-diesel car) already had catalytic converters and electronic engine management. Their emissions aren't really much worse than 2019 cars, assuming they're kept in good shape. The real fall in smog-forming emissions came between the early 70s and late 80s, where all US cars gradually ended up with EFI, O2 sensors, and cats.
Fuel efficiency was much worse though. Not many cars in the 70's or 80's could do 40mpg.
It was a bit racist of the AC grandparent to make the connection, but I suppose it is hard to live where he is, without automatically associating class and race.
I'm a little confused and feel like I'm missing a joke (probably a racist one that I don't want to know), or some pop culture reference.
What exactly was it that was said that was racist? Is there some sort of stereotype that white people don't wear "sneakers". White people wear trainers too, always have, is this a new taboo? Is white people wearing "sneakers" considered cultural appropriation or something now. What the hell are white people supposed to wear when playing sports now if we're not supposed to wear trainers? Are white people supposed to play tennis in cowboy boots or something?
I'll go one further. "Rich kids" because they have an Apple Watch? Really? Now the definition between "rich" and "poor" is based on a $349 device?
Pretty much. I'm not rich or poor, comfortably middle, and there is no way I'd buy my kids a $349 device! I wouldn't buy one myself, most expensive "goods"I've probably ever purchased for myself besides car/house is a $200 used kayak (would have been $1500 new), and a $220 smart phone.
If you really think "$349" is "nothing" then you're rich, even if you don't know it. (or don't have kids so have plenty of disposable income)
Or the teacher could simply say "no watches during tests" and make them take them off.
Like they finally did with graphics calculators. I used to program my graphics calculator with all the formulas and answers... but then I'd never actually need to use it to cheat during the test, because I'd remember the answers after programming them into my calculator.
With my kids now, they wipe the memory of the calculators before a test so they can't cheat... schools slowly learn.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this a surprise? Any software can *see* what you are doing. That is why you run closed source software at your own risk. You have zero idea what it could be doing. The only closed source software I use is the HOST FILES ENGINE by Apk.
Yes, because that's guaranteed not to contain a Trojan. He has told us so many times to trust him and his software that he must be trustworthy.
they are called hashes, and have been used forever. google doesn't need to store user passwords in their database or transmit them over the wire at all. google simply stores a hash of the username+password combination. when you enter credentials, that same hash is generated locally, then the resulting hash is transmitted over the wire and checked against the database. this is trivial to implement these days.
True, but "doesn't need to" does not equal "won't".
The correct way to go about it would be to advise users if their password is on known data breaches whether it is associated with the username or not. Otherwise this extension could be used to mine credentials out of whatever database google is using.
Indeed; I don't want to give Chrome my username or credentials. Granted, it could scrape my username when I log in places, but I'm assuming that is too low, even for Google.
Nor do we regulate the morality of sex.
That's not entirely true. Certain niche's are off-limits. For example "face sitting", the act of a "dominant" woman sitting on the face of a man to receive pleasuring is not legal to be filmed or watched in the UK
The government takes the profits of the Crown Estate, it doesn't own it. End that deal and the monarch gets the profits back - it's a net loss to the UK taxpayer.
That's a common misconception. Since 1760 the monarch hasn't owned it.
The Crown Estate belongs to the British people "in the name of the monarch" (basically to save face it kept the name). George III ran up a lot of debts and parliament bailed him out in exchange for the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate belongs to the people of Britain now. Her Majesty occupies certain parts of the Crown Estate on the whims of the people. She does outright own a lot of estates herself though.
It's probably not a bad idea to have one of the worse offenders actively involved in trying to find a solution.
You say that as if anyone sent by Sudan would actually care about finding a solution.
I'm an optimist and hope for the best in people. You're right, depending on who they send it could be ineffective, but I have noticed that people tend to live up to the expectations you set for them.
If you expect someone to be dishonest, they will lie to you; if you treat someone as if they're honest they tend to be more trustworthy. I would hope psychologically, putting someone in the position to end human abuses would make them more inclined to seek out that solution.
Doesn't always work, but treating someone as if they're responsible and worthwhile usually is more likely to make them act that way.
It's probably not a bad idea to have one of the worse offenders actively involved in trying to find a solution.
On the other hand.
It's similar to putting a mobster in the white house. How is that experiment going?
The correct analogy would be if a mobster was an advisor to the President. (not a mobster being the President). A mobster could give interesting advice to the President. Naturally, if you put the mobster in charge of the country it would cause chaos, government might even shut down.
It's all in how it is regulated and how it is used. Like any technology, whether this is a net-positive or a net-negative for the world isn't immediately obvious. I could easily see this being used to persecute minorities OR to genuinely help lessen crime.
Who is going to regulate how the police use this though- and what they can get away with?
So, police forces in the UK are using Chinese technology to further spy on their citizens.
Apparently having a Queen makes you stupid enough to stand for this shit.
Sorry, the old hag is on my money, but she and her clan can die in a fire or fuck the hell off.
They'll never have any actual freedom as long as people believe the bullshit that the royals are somehow special.
Well, first off, UK spying on their citizens isn't anything new. Britain's high streets have been under the eye of cameras for decades now. You almost have to assume if you're outside on a street in Britain that at least one camera is recording you.
As for "real freedom" that's fairly subjective based on what you consider freedom to be. There probably isn't any country in the world that everyone would say is a perfect bastion of freedom- because it's a precarious balance. Some would consider the US to be less free with it's lack of representative vote (electoral system), a political system that is biased towards a two party system, lack of an unbiased media (everything leans one way or the other to a degree), world's highest incarceration rate, lack of egalitarian education or health systems. (wealthy areas have much better schools, and rich people get better care). Lots of "morality laws" based on drugs, alcohol, sexual morality.
As for the Queen, yeah, I'm against her too, or at least her receiving tax payer money. Many will bring up the strawmen of tourists and the Crown Estate as reasons to keep the Queen; as if, making her a private citizen and not receiving public money would stop the tourists coming. And as for the Crown Estate, it is owned by the people of the UK. Government took over responsibility of the Crown Estate in exchange for taking over some of the debts that the royal family had run up. The Crown Estate does not belong to the person wearing the Crown. (The Queen does have substantial wealth and holdings of her own though that are separate to the Crown Estate).
All that said, the Queen has no impact on "Freedom" in the UK. She has very little power to impact the world for reasons of Good or Evil.
Plenty could, because they didn't have as much pigfat. Ever driven an 80s or 90s Corolla or Civic?
I owned an 89 Corolla, my first car in fact. It had pretty decent efficiency for it's time. I averaged about 30mpg, which is about 10mpg less than I average in my little Honda Fit today and slightly less than my wife's SUV today.
Which is not an option for deliveries
Frequently, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and service vehicles are all allowed in certain parts of cities that ban private cars.
"...it will never end."
I had a problem with that statement. That's a pretty impossible statement to make. We don't even know what will happen in a generation, or two generations. To say "it will never end" is absurdist.
Most trusted world authorities - the UN?! The same UN that puts Sudan on the "Human Rights Committee"?
It's probably not a bad idea to have one of the worse offenders actively involved in trying to find a solution.
I've had jobs that seemed like that every day.
I've had toilet visits like that.
Dirt! If only we had dirt! When I was a kid, all we had was gravel! And it was cold!
Gravel? I wish we had gravel, all we had were the ground up bones of our ancestors! And they were still decomposing!
Be like Bill Gates, his miles long driveway is a heated, ice/snow free one.
Good idea. I will become a billionaire. Why hadn't I thought of that before? Now, if each of you can give me a few hundred thousand $$$$, I will achieve my aim.
it started with neoliberal policies with thatcher at the begining of the 80s
Of the many things you can blame Thatcher for, being liberal, is not one of them.
Mid 90s cars (assuming you're in the US and own a non-diesel car) already had catalytic converters and electronic engine management. Their emissions aren't really much worse than 2019 cars, assuming they're kept in good shape. The real fall in smog-forming emissions came between the early 70s and late 80s, where all US cars gradually ended up with EFI, O2 sensors, and cats.
Fuel efficiency was much worse though. Not many cars in the 70's or 80's could do 40mpg.
What a PITA that would be, I'm guessing that takes a lot of the fun out of after market exhaust systems.
On the other hand: What a PITA the consequences of not having emissions checks are!
There is just some fight in Germany about that, because cars are banned from driving in some cities because of these limits.
Which is also a great way to encourage public transportation use.
It was a bit racist of the AC grandparent to make the connection, but I suppose it is hard to live where he is, without automatically associating class and race.
I'm a little confused and feel like I'm missing a joke (probably a racist one that I don't want to know), or some pop culture reference.
What exactly was it that was said that was racist? Is there some sort of stereotype that white people don't wear "sneakers". White people wear trainers too, always have, is this a new taboo? Is white people wearing "sneakers" considered cultural appropriation or something now. What the hell are white people supposed to wear when playing sports now if we're not supposed to wear trainers? Are white people supposed to play tennis in cowboy boots or something?
This has all got just a little too absurd.
Duh! Forgot my computer of course which I put together for about $600... clearly more than the price of the watch.
I'll go one further. "Rich kids" because they have an Apple Watch? Really? Now the definition between "rich" and "poor" is based on a $349 device?
Pretty much. I'm not rich or poor, comfortably middle, and there is no way I'd buy my kids a $349 device! I wouldn't buy one myself, most expensive "goods"I've probably ever purchased for myself besides car/house is a $200 used kayak (would have been $1500 new), and a $220 smart phone.
If you really think "$349" is "nothing" then you're rich, even if you don't know it. (or don't have kids so have plenty of disposable income)
Or the teacher could simply say "no watches during tests" and make them take them off.
Like they finally did with graphics calculators. I used to program my graphics calculator with all the formulas and answers... but then I'd never actually need to use it to cheat during the test, because I'd remember the answers after programming them into my calculator.
With my kids now, they wipe the memory of the calculators before a test so they can't cheat... schools slowly learn.
Fortunately Himalayan salt candles and kombucha can mitigate the effects when used rectally.
I'm assuming that one is not to use any lube then as that would dissolve the salt candle.