Isn't the DC Court of Appeals sort of the equivalent of a State Supreme Court, with no jurisdiction outside DC? It get s a little confusing since it's still a federal court due to the nature of the District of Columbia, but I don't think this has any bearing on the 2nd Circuit ruling from a few months ago.
It's unlikely it ever ends up before SCOTUS since it was swept under the rug legislatively, but let's not misunderstand this as a sweeping judicial approval of the program.
But is that what we really want? If CEOs are personally responsible for every action taken by a company, say hello to oppressive micro-management. I don't mean the normal "my manager wants to cover his ass" micro-management. If you turn this into a "perfect security or jailtime" proposition, there will be real consequenses all the way down the ladder. So maybe the CEO isn't the one ultimately responsible for website security...send the webmaster to jail? How far do we take that? Individual programmers are now criminally responsible for bugs?
It's not just a marketing spend. Once word spread around that IE on the desktop was toxic, people sought out an alternative. That same message has not happened (or really been necessary) on mobile. Chrome is the default on Android, and it's a fine enough browser that looking for an alternative isn't necessary for most people. Google has made it easy to sync across platforms, so Chrome has become the new alternative on the desktop as well (for Windows machines only, obviously).
The Firefox situation isn't so much Mozilla's fault for screwing it up as it is Microsoft making real gains in browser quality recently, combined with Google and Safari making for a simpler cross-platform experience. FF is not the default on any major platform, so it doesn't get to use that momentum to press into other platforms. All its major competitors do get that advantage.
The Constitution does not authorize the US government to operate an Air Force, only an Army and Navy. Does that mean that anything more modern than was available in the 18th century is unconstitutional? Of course not. Likewise, modern arms, so long as they fall within the spirit of the framers intent, are also legal.
This is a pretty clear play to appeal not to the voters, but the money. The military-industrial complex has a large part to play (some would say the only part) in choosing the nominee. Coming out against encryption this early allows him to appeal to the check-writers, and leave him plenty of time to do damage control with the voters later. Still incredibly tone deaf, and hopefully it's a play that doesn't pay off, but as far as establishment candidates are concerned, it's just par for the course. It would have worked 8 years ago. Let's hope voters are more savvy now.
"Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties." This, though, is entirely unforgivable. Bulk collection, BY DEFINITION, violates civil liberties.
Which printer/copier company has any respect for their customers? For every customer Xerox loses over this, they pick one up from HP and all the others for doing the same shit.
I got my kid a $40 smartphone last month. I certainly wouldn't buy one for myself, but as a virtually disposable, entry-level unit, it's fine. People are talking like there is a race to this particular price level, but everybody still racing has already lost.
How hard would it be to crowdsource the IPs that the OS is pinging and blacklist them at the router level? Assuming they aren't the same servers used for Windows Update, of course. This seems a rather trivial problem to solve for anybody willing to spend a few minutes sniffing out the traffic.
I have to think it's some perverse offshoot of the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" theory. You say you mentally catalog all the bad ads, but the ire certainly fades after some time. In a few months, maybe you have a choice to make between Widget Company and Acme Corp, and even though you can no longer remember that you had been angry with Acme, you recognize the name, so you give them a shot.
I do the same thing. People at work ask me all the time where I got a copy of Win2K. This is a business machine, I don't need a neon-colored taskbar, a bunch of slow/pointless animations or unnecessarily massive UI elements (window borders, scrollbars, etc). The last 10-15 years have seen a huge jump in display technologies, but MS seems to be tailoring every new version of Windows to smaller screens with worse resolutions. I've got dual 32" displays; I don't need the same UI as somebody using their fat fingers on a 10" tablet.
There are two key assumptions here, and both are flawed:
1. Murders keep that ONE KEY piece of evidence on their phones. Seems specious at best. Despite what folks see on CSI: The Unnecessary Spinoff, police work is actually hard. Cases don't get solved in 60 minutes including commercial breaks. And there is rarely ONE KEY piece of evidence that makes or breaks a case, and it's even more rarely that it's stored on a phone, and even more rare that the phone happens to be encrypted. This is little more than using the worst case scenario and trying to apply it to Every Situation Ever. Bullshit.
2. That the tradeoff is worth the cost. Sure, we'd all be a lot safer if we lived in glass houses and had a police officer (government minder) assigned to every person, just following people around. No more murders, no more rapes, no more anything. Pure safety, pure hell. Fuck that world.
Already done. Google's been under government heat for some time about taxes precisely because they use all legal loopholes available to them. My first thought was that this makes it easier to spin off ancillary companies like Nest that don't contribute much to the core Google business. If they go ahead and reorganize every unit as its own "company," it will add a new layer of bureaucracy, but also more accountability to each new CEO to make their business profitable. It's possible this is as simple as the board getting fed up with pet projects that fail (*cough*GPlus*cough*) and they want better return on investments without tying up the whole conglomerate as unwilling partners in those experiments.
One of two shareware programs I ever purchased for was the far-too-generically-named "Plug-In For Windows" by Plannet Crafters.
First introduced in September 1992, it was a Start Menu-like interface for Windows 3.x, only without the Start button itself. A right-click on the desktop would bring up the menu, optionally with nested folders. If Apple had any patents on the functionality, they should have nipped the menu-style interface in the butt long before Win95. By the time Microsoft got a hold of it, it was pretty generic.
"the Tor browser, which is supposed to guarantee anonymity." Dangerously incorrect. In fact, the start page makes this quite clear: "Tor is NOT all you need to browse anonymously! You may need to change some of your browsing habits to ensure your identity stays safe." The Tor Browser allows you to be anonymous, IF you follow some basic principles. Nothing is guaranteed.
Agreed. I just meant that "oops" would be enough to weather the political storm (in fact, it already mostly has), and would probably be enough to keep a friendly Justice Department off her back for another 18 months. Strictly legally speaking, it's not an excuse, but the letter of the law rarely applies to high-profile politicians..
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the DC Court of Appeals sort of the equivalent of a State Supreme Court, with no jurisdiction outside DC? It get s a little confusing since it's still a federal court due to the nature of the District of Columbia, but I don't think this has any bearing on the 2nd Circuit ruling from a few months ago.
It's unlikely it ever ends up before SCOTUS since it was swept under the rug legislatively, but let's not misunderstand this as a sweeping judicial approval of the program.
Or just block the URLs/IP addresses later down the network stream, like at the router.
Cyberchondria
But is that what we really want? If CEOs are personally responsible for every action taken by a company, say hello to oppressive micro-management. I don't mean the normal "my manager wants to cover his ass" micro-management. If you turn this into a "perfect security or jailtime" proposition, there will be real consequenses all the way down the ladder. So maybe the CEO isn't the one ultimately responsible for website security...send the webmaster to jail? How far do we take that? Individual programmers are now criminally responsible for bugs?
It's not just a marketing spend. Once word spread around that IE on the desktop was toxic, people sought out an alternative. That same message has not happened (or really been necessary) on mobile. Chrome is the default on Android, and it's a fine enough browser that looking for an alternative isn't necessary for most people. Google has made it easy to sync across platforms, so Chrome has become the new alternative on the desktop as well (for Windows machines only, obviously).
The Firefox situation isn't so much Mozilla's fault for screwing it up as it is Microsoft making real gains in browser quality recently, combined with Google and Safari making for a simpler cross-platform experience. FF is not the default on any major platform, so it doesn't get to use that momentum to press into other platforms. All its major competitors do get that advantage.
The Constitution does not authorize the US government to operate an Air Force, only an Army and Navy. Does that mean that anything more modern than was available in the 18th century is unconstitutional? Of course not. Likewise, modern arms, so long as they fall within the spirit of the framers intent, are also legal.
It would be easier to just open carry.
This is a pretty clear play to appeal not to the voters, but the money. The military-industrial complex has a large part to play (some would say the only part) in choosing the nominee. Coming out against encryption this early allows him to appeal to the check-writers, and leave him plenty of time to do damage control with the voters later. Still incredibly tone deaf, and hopefully it's a play that doesn't pay off, but as far as establishment candidates are concerned, it's just par for the course. It would have worked 8 years ago. Let's hope voters are more savvy now.
"Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties."
This, though, is entirely unforgivable. Bulk collection, BY DEFINITION , violates civil liberties.
Which printer/copier company has any respect for their customers? For every customer Xerox loses over this, they pick one up from HP and all the others for doing the same shit.
I got my kid a $40 smartphone last month. I certainly wouldn't buy one for myself, but as a virtually disposable, entry-level unit, it's fine. People are talking like there is a race to this particular price level, but everybody still racing has already lost.
How hard would it be to crowdsource the IPs that the OS is pinging and blacklist them at the router level? Assuming they aren't the same servers used for Windows Update, of course. This seems a rather trivial problem to solve for anybody willing to spend a few minutes sniffing out the traffic.
I have to think it's some perverse offshoot of the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" theory. You say you mentally catalog all the bad ads, but the ire certainly fades after some time. In a few months, maybe you have a choice to make between Widget Company and Acme Corp, and even though you can no longer remember that you had been angry with Acme, you recognize the name, so you give them a shot.
I do the same thing. People at work ask me all the time where I got a copy of Win2K. This is a business machine, I don't need a neon-colored taskbar, a bunch of slow/pointless animations or unnecessarily massive UI elements (window borders, scrollbars, etc). The last 10-15 years have seen a huge jump in display technologies, but MS seems to be tailoring every new version of Windows to smaller screens with worse resolutions. I've got dual 32" displays; I don't need the same UI as somebody using their fat fingers on a 10" tablet.
There are two key assumptions here, and both are flawed:
1. Murders keep that ONE KEY piece of evidence on their phones. Seems specious at best. Despite what folks see on CSI: The Unnecessary Spinoff, police work is actually hard. Cases don't get solved in 60 minutes including commercial breaks. And there is rarely ONE KEY piece of evidence that makes or breaks a case, and it's even more rarely that it's stored on a phone, and even more rare that the phone happens to be encrypted. This is little more than using the worst case scenario and trying to apply it to Every Situation Ever. Bullshit.
2. That the tradeoff is worth the cost. Sure, we'd all be a lot safer if we lived in glass houses and had a police officer (government minder) assigned to every person, just following people around. No more murders, no more rapes, no more anything. Pure safety, pure hell. Fuck that world.
But 40x better than Edge.
Already done. Google's been under government heat for some time about taxes precisely because they use all legal loopholes available to them. My first thought was that this makes it easier to spin off ancillary companies like Nest that don't contribute much to the core Google business. If they go ahead and reorganize every unit as its own "company," it will add a new layer of bureaucracy, but also more accountability to each new CEO to make their business profitable. It's possible this is as simple as the board getting fed up with pet projects that fail (*cough*GPlus*cough*) and they want better return on investments without tying up the whole conglomerate as unwilling partners in those experiments.
Government lobbyists and lawyers.
According to the Post, local lobbying registration records indicate the company hired private lobbyists in at least 50 US cities and states and has hired at least 161 people to lobby for its interests. In Sacramento alone, Uber spent $475,000 over five months to influence California lawmakers, the Post reports.
And that was nearly a year ago. Promoting and defending their disruptive business model against entrenched interests requires a lot of legal help.
An easy claim to make, but to verify, we'll need a picture for comparison.
1) Disable all network access. 2) Disable all external storage access (USB, DVD, etc). 3) Most importantly, disable all user logins.
Don't be silly, Apple will never get Apple Maps fixed.
But "Start" was the only obvious choice after Microsoft paid off The Rolling Stones to use Start Me Up in their advertising.
One of two shareware programs I ever purchased for was the far-too-generically-named "Plug-In For Windows" by Plannet Crafters.
First introduced in September 1992, it was a Start Menu-like interface for Windows 3.x, only without the Start button itself. A right-click on the desktop would bring up the menu, optionally with nested folders. If Apple had any patents on the functionality, they should have nipped the menu-style interface in the butt long before Win95. By the time Microsoft got a hold of it, it was pretty generic.
"the Tor browser, which is supposed to guarantee anonymity."
Dangerously incorrect. In fact, the start page makes this quite clear: "Tor is NOT all you need to browse anonymously! You may need to change some of your browsing habits to ensure your identity stays safe." The Tor Browser allows you to be anonymous, IF you follow some basic principles. Nothing is guaranteed.
We pay their salaries, but lobbyists pay more. Hood himself has raised over $400k this year, through the end of May.
Agreed. I just meant that "oops" would be enough to weather the political storm (in fact, it already mostly has), and would probably be enough to keep a friendly Justice Department off her back for another 18 months. Strictly legally speaking, it's not an excuse, but the letter of the law rarely applies to high-profile politicians..