You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
You realize the rollbars are there to prevent the roof from being crushed into the passenger, right? They are there to provide stiffness, so the roof doesn't come crashing on the driver.
Which is precisely what the AC said. There's a reason the passenger space in the car is *not* a crumple zone... because you'd crumple into the passengers. Which is why *all* cars are made to resist any intrusion into the cabin, why rollbars are in race cars, and why its something all the testing agencies test, and why its a big deal that they *couldn't* crush the space in the Model S.
I'm assuming in your zeal to post something negative on Slashdot that you misread the original post, and I'm not wasting time pointing this out to someone just trolling...
Have you priced new cars in the last ten years? The cheapest bottom-of-the-line Volvo lists at $32k, and they skyrocket from there.
Inflation has been a bitch with most car lines. A roughly comparably priced Volvo (S80) with "normal" options is $50k, and is vastly less well equipped.
Don't get me wrong, the numbers are quite impressive - especially the following passage from TFA:
And just how strong is the Model S’s roof, which is secured with aerospace-grade bolts? It broke a testing machine that was pushing down on the roof with the equivalent of the weight of four cars.
... Damn, yo.
However, at a price point of $80 - 100K, it's going to remain a playtoy for people with money, not become the OMG super-car replacement for mom's $30K Volvo.
$30k Volvo? Have you priced new cars in the last ten years? The cheapest bottom-of-the-line Volvo lists at $32k, and they skyrocket from there.
Inflation has been a bitch with most car lines. A roughly comparably priced Volvo (S80) with "normal" options is $50k, and is vastly less well equipped.
It's a great car, but Iteration 2 is more like $80,000, and iteration 3 (SUV) will be comparable to a comparable Model S in price according to the web site. A $50k car is possible, but $30k is unlikely for quite a while.
And $50k would put it at the meat of the pack of cars from all but the discount lines. $50k isn't a lot of money for a car in 2013.
unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain. which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head. stupid AC.
Strange the experts agree with the AC.
You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
I'm sure the government loves people like you and thanks you for making it so easy to violate people's rights.
What rights? You think you have those rights because Slashdot and the associated media told you. "Privacy" has never been a right in human history. And given that people nearly universally want more privacy than they're willing to grant to others, its a hypocritical imaginary "right".
The government doesn't give two shits about me, or you for that matter. The difference is, I seem to have a vastly superior grasp of history.
You are awfully free with other peoples money. Perhaps he wants to make sure it will show a profit, rather than carry a second loss making project for years...
If that was his goal, they left a zero off the crowdsourcing goal.
But if the goal was to get a ton of media attention and marketing, they're being successful. In five days everyone's money is returned, and millions of dollars worth of advertising will have been bought for the efforts.
Why crowdfunding? Shuttleworth should just cancel his next trip to mars to raise the funds.
The point of this exercise was to show hardware makers that there is a crowd out there willing to pay lots of money for a non-Android/non-iOS/non-Windows OS, so they will get onboard and start offering Ubuntu Phone.
Although the cold hard economic facts of it is that there really isn't a market big enough... at typical phone hardware prices, $10m is, what... 15,000 phones? At that quantity, you won't get discounts on the manufacturing, so it won't cover anywhere near that. The math simply makes no sense... and even less so when you consider Canonical (unlike Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, etc..) doesn't have an IP portfolio to cross license, so there's likely $100+ in IP costs per handset they'd have to pay to legally sell the hardware. (Typically with cross licensing, a company only pays the amount of the delta between the cross licensed portfolios, so one company might have $50 in license fees and another $60, so the first one would owe $10 a handset to the other.)
IMO, this is just Canonical (and more to the point Shuttleworth) playing like a big company the same way a kid plays like an astronaut or a fireman. Cute and all, but a lot of people are going to lose money because of it.
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security."
That's just being plain ignorant of history. At virtually no point in human history (including the US) was there a concept of privacy, openness or governmental transparency.
You may disagree with the reality of the world and wish for something different -- I'm sure most people do -- but pretending this is something new doesn't open the possibility of change because you're focusing on correcting a cause that doesn't actually exist.
Although, personally, I think its a whole lot less stressful to not worry about things that don't really impact me, always have been and always will be. On that note, I'm going to e-mail and call friends to arrange a barbecue because the weather is really quite spectacular today, and I don't give two shits what spooky government agency might be storing my call records or scanning those e-mails.
Re:Student loans are not forgiven in bankrupcy.
on
The College-Loan Scandal
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Exactly like the housing bubble. Then they gave out loans to people clearly unqualified, clearly unable to pay back the loan, low-documentation loans, no-documentation loans, interest only loans, negative amortization loans, etc etc.
And, exactly like the housing bubble, we seem to be blaming the schools and banks for the irresponsible behavior of the people taking out the loans.
Things are going to continue the shithole downward spiral in the US until people get out of this "its not their fault" mentality that arose in the last 15-20 years and start holding people responsible for their actions and poor decisions.
Well, sure, but don't the font developers ever check this stuff out, by, for example, looking at real words on real displays? Just imagine how confusing this could be to a copying machine.
It turned out that the visit from Homeland Security after the "pressure cooker" and "backpack" searches weren't a result of Google monitoring but of a report from the guy's employer after finding the search on his work computer.
Don't let facts spoil a Slashdot privacy wank-fest.
If you care so little about security that you don't secure your user account, I doubt you care enough about security to worry about your other credentials.
Stupid is as stupid does, as they say.
The problem with this is that it is very short-sighted. There is no 100% effective way to secure an account other than to not use it or to keep it disconnected from networks and away from other users. That may be an acceptable risk for you, but I prefer having another layer of protection.
Maybe you didn't read the article and what is being discussed. The reason Google is being singled out is because one guy discovered an issue with Chrome and then Google's top chief for Chrome security had a crappy response.
No he had exactly the right response, but there's a lot of morons (at proven by the threads on this story) who think they understand security and don't.
No, its how things work. Do you really think your credentials are secure once I've gotten access to your session on Linux or Windows? I can inject code into your password manager and grab things as they're running. I can get into your browser and hijack your sessions trivially. If you're using any sort of identity federation (AD/Kerberos, SAML-based, whatever) I can access it. If you've got sufficient privileges, I can load a kernel driver/module and grab them out of memory.
While I won't call you criminally stupid, if you're really placated by the theater, by all means use your "password" secured credential store and keep right on believing its any more secure than a file in a Linux user account, much less the credential store built into Windows.
You need the user's Windows account credentials to decrypt the passwords.
Have you ever seen a user using a Windows machine that isn't logged in? That means there is basically constant access to Chrome passwords. I'd prefer to have the option of a separate master password for my browser like Firefox does. It's not like it would even be that hard for Chrome to implement, so I'm not sure why there is such a struggle to add it. (Could be a hidden advanced feature even.) Are there scenarios where an attacker could get the master password? Yes, of course, but with the current system they are guaranteed access. Are there scenarios where they could not get the master password? Absolutely.
I'd prefer to minimize my security risk. I'm not proposing that you are forced into the same master password system, merely that I have the option to choose it. (Which I currently do by using Firefox.)
If you care so little about security that you don't secure your user account, I doubt you care enough about security to worry about your other credentials.
The consumer and producer can very well be the same person. I can have music on my home computer, which I stream to my own devices (and nobody else's devices) over the internet. So if there's any music that was copied from a "borrowed" CD, listening to it away from home suddenly is a felony.
Well, I think as long as you don't do something stupid like knock up your local DA's underage daughter, the odds you'll get prosecuted for streaming data from yourself to yourself is very low. IANAL, but I suspect that may not be illegal anyway as long as you're legitimately streaming it from the source content.
Bieber spoke out against Klobuchar’s bill, saying the senator should be “locked up—put away in cuffs” while noting he personally thinks it is “awesome” when he sees fans uploading their own covers of his songs.
If Justin Bieber is against it, how can it ever pass?
If he is the rights owner to the songs, he can give people permission to do anything they want with it already. (Now, odds are he's not, so his beef is with his recording contracts not with the US government.)
The horrible transparency of the administration's agenda is staggering: fuck civil liberties; to hell with consumer rights; let's make civil infractions criminal offenses; let's use jackboot tactics to go after marijuana users; let's viciously and vindictively persecute those who try to expose government and corporate indiscretions by siccing our most petty, pea-brained people on them; let's lie, cheat, steal, bully, badger, and spy on everyone who could possibly be a threat. Essentially, the absolute primacy of government and corporate interests over individual rights. The only ones shittier are the Republicans, but not by much.
I honestly thought Obama would be different. Fuck me, right?!
They're not making civil infractions into criminal offenses in this case. Like MP3 downloads vs uploads, this is about the people who provide the material, not people who consume it. There's a legal inconsistency right now in that if you -- as the server, not the consumer -- make available copyrighted material that the end user retains possession of, its a felony but if you give them a viewer and they can just watch it, its not.
The fact is, copyright is the law in the US and its not likely to change. Inconsistent laws make things more murky and open to interpretation, so personally I'm glad to see an effort to make things more consistent. They may be more consistently bad but at least they're consistent and you know going into an action what its consequences may be. Once you are there, you can work on the source laws.
I would like to know how streaming content to watch it is any different then actually downloading the content. From the way the summary is worded, it seems like if you stream the content to the client, it's only a misdemeanor, however, if the client downloads the content, you are committing a felony. But the server really has no control what happens with the data that is sent to the client. It may be set up in such a way as to "stream" the content to the client, but the client can save the stream if they want, and watch it later. It could be argued that all copyright data going over the internet is being streamed. I'm not saying we need harsher sentencing, for any of this stuff, but it doesn't make sense to have different penalties for serving a file for streaming, and serving a file for download, when it's really up to the receiving end what happens to that data in the end.
I think more than a few people on here are misreading or misinterpreting the article. They're talking about the person sourcing the stream, not the person consuming the stream.
It IS a felony already to make copyrighted material available for download without permission from the copyright holder. But if the intent is to stream it to a viewer without download, its not because its deemed broadcasting without a license. It seems this is just trying to make both consistent crimes. (I'm not passing any judgment on the appropriateness of one or the other, but inconsistent laws are worse than bad laws.)
But in either case, they're not making it a (new) crime to consume a copyrighted stream, just to broadcast it.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
You realize the rollbars are there to prevent the roof from being crushed into the passenger, right? They are there to provide stiffness, so the roof doesn't come crashing on the driver.
Which is precisely what the AC said. There's a reason the passenger space in the car is *not* a crumple zone... because you'd crumple into the passengers. Which is why *all* cars are made to resist any intrusion into the cabin, why rollbars are in race cars, and why its something all the testing agencies test, and why its a big deal that they *couldn't* crush the space in the Model S.
I'm assuming in your zeal to post something negative on Slashdot that you misread the original post, and I'm not wasting time pointing this out to someone just trolling ...
Have you priced new cars in the last ten years? The cheapest bottom-of-the-line Volvo lists at $32k, and they skyrocket from there.
Inflation has been a bitch with most car lines. A roughly comparably priced Volvo (S80) with "normal" options is $50k, and is vastly less well equipped.
Sorry, I meant comparably sized, not priced...
Don't get me wrong, the numbers are quite impressive - especially the following passage from TFA:
However, at a price point of $80 - 100K, it's going to remain a playtoy for people with money, not become the OMG super-car replacement for mom's $30K Volvo.
$30k Volvo? Have you priced new cars in the last ten years? The cheapest bottom-of-the-line Volvo lists at $32k, and they skyrocket from there.
Inflation has been a bitch with most car lines. A roughly comparably priced Volvo (S80) with "normal" options is $50k, and is vastly less well equipped.
It's a great car, but Iteration 2 is more like $80,000, and iteration 3 (SUV) will be comparable to a comparable Model S in price according to the web site. A $50k car is possible, but $30k is unlikely for quite a while.
And $50k would put it at the meat of the pack of cars from all but the discount lines. $50k isn't a lot of money for a car in 2013.
unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain.
which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head.
stupid AC.
Strange the experts agree with the AC.
You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
I'm sure the government loves people like you and thanks you for making it so easy to violate people's rights.
What rights? You think you have those rights because Slashdot and the associated media told you. "Privacy" has never been a right in human history. And given that people nearly universally want more privacy than they're willing to grant to others, its a hypocritical imaginary "right".
The government doesn't give two shits about me, or you for that matter. The difference is, I seem to have a vastly superior grasp of history.
You are awfully free with other peoples money. Perhaps he wants to make sure it will show a profit, rather than carry a second loss making project for years...
If that was his goal, they left a zero off the crowdsourcing goal.
But if the goal was to get a ton of media attention and marketing, they're being successful. In five days everyone's money is returned, and millions of dollars worth of advertising will have been bought for the efforts.
The point of this exercise was to show hardware makers that there is a crowd out there willing to pay lots of money for a non-Android/non-iOS/non-Windows OS, so they will get onboard and start offering Ubuntu Phone.
Although the cold hard economic facts of it is that there really isn't a market big enough ... at typical phone hardware prices, $10m is, what... 15,000 phones? At that quantity, you won't get discounts on the manufacturing, so it won't cover anywhere near that. The math simply makes no sense... and even less so when you consider Canonical (unlike Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, etc..) doesn't have an IP portfolio to cross license, so there's likely $100+ in IP costs per handset they'd have to pay to legally sell the hardware. (Typically with cross licensing, a company only pays the amount of the delta between the cross licensed portfolios, so one company might have $50 in license fees and another $60, so the first one would owe $10 a handset to the other.)
IMO, this is just Canonical (and more to the point Shuttleworth) playing like a big company the same way a kid plays like an astronaut or a fireman. Cute and all, but a lot of people are going to lose money because of it.
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security."
But Then It Was Too Late
That's just being plain ignorant of history. At virtually no point in human history (including the US) was there a concept of privacy, openness or governmental transparency.
You may disagree with the reality of the world and wish for something different -- I'm sure most people do -- but pretending this is something new doesn't open the possibility of change because you're focusing on correcting a cause that doesn't actually exist.
Although, personally, I think its a whole lot less stressful to not worry about things that don't really impact me, always have been and always will be. On that note, I'm going to e-mail and call friends to arrange a barbecue because the weather is really quite spectacular today, and I don't give two shits what spooky government agency might be storing my call records or scanning those e-mails.
Exactly like the housing bubble. Then they gave out loans to people clearly unqualified, clearly unable to pay back the loan, low-documentation loans, no-documentation loans, interest only loans, negative amortization loans, etc etc.
And, exactly like the housing bubble, we seem to be blaming the schools and banks for the irresponsible behavior of the people taking out the loans.
Things are going to continue the shithole downward spiral in the US until people get out of this "its not their fault" mentality that arose in the last 15-20 years and start holding people responsible for their actions and poor decisions.
that actually was a quote of Vishnu in the Hindu scriptures Bhagavad-Gita.
But only one of the two was talking about nuclear weapons.
if we have a global nuclear war, does that mean science won?
No, it means the neutrons won.
Well, one of the dark sides is that our agrochemical food causes many of these cancers in the first place.
Science: a process intended to prevent stupidity like this statement.
Try it. It works.
Well, sure, but don't the font developers ever check this stuff out,
by, for example, looking at real words on real displays?
Just imagine how confusing this could be to a copying machine.
That's a wooshing problem.
It turned out that the visit from Homeland Security after the "pressure cooker" and "backpack" searches weren't a result of Google monitoring but of a report from the guy's employer after finding the search on his work computer.
Don't let facts spoil a Slashdot privacy wank-fest.
You can't be serious...
Do a little more research about that stuff (i.e. who's getting tax money, who's giving it back etc).
He could very well be serious, and a moron. The combination happens in droves on Slashdot.
If you care so little about security that you don't secure your user account, I doubt you care enough about security to worry about your other credentials.
Stupid is as stupid does, as they say.
The problem with this is that it is very short-sighted. There is no 100% effective way to secure an account other than to not use it or to keep it disconnected from networks and away from other users. That may be an acceptable risk for you, but I prefer having another layer of protection.
And that protection is theater, nothing more.
Maybe you didn't read the article and what is being discussed. The reason Google is being singled out is because one guy discovered an issue with Chrome and then Google's top chief for Chrome security had a crappy response.
No he had exactly the right response, but there's a lot of morons (at proven by the threads on this story) who think they understand security and don't.
And that is criminally stupid.
No, its how things work. Do you really think your credentials are secure once I've gotten access to your session on Linux or Windows? I can inject code into your password manager and grab things as they're running. I can get into your browser and hijack your sessions trivially. If you're using any sort of identity federation (AD/Kerberos, SAML-based, whatever) I can access it. If you've got sufficient privileges, I can load a kernel driver/module and grab them out of memory.
While I won't call you criminally stupid, if you're really placated by the theater, by all means use your "password" secured credential store and keep right on believing its any more secure than a file in a Linux user account, much less the credential store built into Windows.
You need the user's Windows account credentials to decrypt the passwords.
Have you ever seen a user using a Windows machine that isn't logged in? That means there is basically constant access to Chrome passwords. I'd prefer to have the option of a separate master password for my browser like Firefox does. It's not like it would even be that hard for Chrome to implement, so I'm not sure why there is such a struggle to add it. (Could be a hidden advanced feature even.) Are there scenarios where an attacker could get the master password? Yes, of course, but with the current system they are guaranteed access. Are there scenarios where they could not get the master password? Absolutely.
I'd prefer to minimize my security risk. I'm not proposing that you are forced into the same master password system, merely that I have the option to choose it. (Which I currently do by using Firefox.)
If you care so little about security that you don't secure your user account, I doubt you care enough about security to worry about your other credentials.
Stupid is as stupid does, as they say.
Hopefully their neighborhood data is more accurate than their property value data.
The consumer and producer can very well be the same person. I can have music on my home computer, which I stream to my own devices (and nobody else's devices) over the internet. So if there's any music that was copied from a "borrowed" CD, listening to it away from home suddenly is a felony.
Well, I think as long as you don't do something stupid like knock up your local DA's underage daughter, the odds you'll get prosecuted for streaming data from yourself to yourself is very low. IANAL, but I suspect that may not be illegal anyway as long as you're legitimately streaming it from the source content.
From the article:
Bieber spoke out against Klobuchar’s bill, saying the senator should be “locked up—put away in cuffs” while noting he personally thinks it is “awesome” when he sees fans uploading their own covers of his songs.
If Justin Bieber is against it, how can it ever pass?
If he is the rights owner to the songs, he can give people permission to do anything they want with it already. (Now, odds are he's not, so his beef is with his recording contracts not with the US government.)
The horrible transparency of the administration's agenda is staggering: fuck civil liberties; to hell with consumer rights; let's make civil infractions criminal offenses; let's use jackboot tactics to go after marijuana users; let's viciously and vindictively persecute those who try to expose government and corporate indiscretions by siccing our most petty, pea-brained people on them; let's lie, cheat, steal, bully, badger, and spy on everyone who could possibly be a threat. Essentially, the absolute primacy of government and corporate interests over individual rights. The only ones shittier are the Republicans, but not by much.
I honestly thought Obama would be different. Fuck me, right?!
They're not making civil infractions into criminal offenses in this case. Like MP3 downloads vs uploads, this is about the people who provide the material, not people who consume it. There's a legal inconsistency right now in that if you -- as the server, not the consumer -- make available copyrighted material that the end user retains possession of, its a felony but if you give them a viewer and they can just watch it, its not.
The fact is, copyright is the law in the US and its not likely to change. Inconsistent laws make things more murky and open to interpretation, so personally I'm glad to see an effort to make things more consistent. They may be more consistently bad but at least they're consistent and you know going into an action what its consequences may be. Once you are there, you can work on the source laws.
I would like to know how streaming content to watch it is any different then actually downloading the content. From the way the summary is worded, it seems like if you stream the content to the client, it's only a misdemeanor, however, if the client downloads the content, you are committing a felony. But the server really has no control what happens with the data that is sent to the client. It may be set up in such a way as to "stream" the content to the client, but the client can save the stream if they want, and watch it later. It could be argued that all copyright data going over the internet is being streamed. I'm not saying we need harsher sentencing, for any of this stuff, but it doesn't make sense to have different penalties for serving a file for streaming, and serving a file for download, when it's really up to the receiving end what happens to that data in the end.
I think more than a few people on here are misreading or misinterpreting the article. They're talking about the person sourcing the stream, not the person consuming the stream.
It IS a felony already to make copyrighted material available for download without permission from the copyright holder. But if the intent is to stream it to a viewer without download, its not because its deemed broadcasting without a license. It seems this is just trying to make both consistent crimes. (I'm not passing any judgment on the appropriateness of one or the other, but inconsistent laws are worse than bad laws.)
But in either case, they're not making it a (new) crime to consume a copyrighted stream, just to broadcast it.