The new application works by intercepting the so-called Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcasts (ADS-B) transmitted by most passenger aircraft to a new satellite tracking system that supplements or, in some countries, replaces radar...
After the September 11 attacks in America in 2001, a senior Federal Aviation Administration official warned that ADS-B technology could be used by terrorists.
So, let me get this straight? Someone, nine years ago warned of how this information could be used, and the FAA didn't insist on, say, adding end-to-end encryption and/or authentication to the spec? Nine years later, the security threat is that any schmuck with an iPhone can tap into it?
Flash: If you leave the front door of your house unlocked, no one needs to "break in." Why do we have the same standards of security for the flight telemetry of commercial jets?
The security threat is the system spec, the folks that designed it, the administrator who signed off on its roll-out, and the attitudes that allow "professionals" to continue to fail to take even basic advice about data security.
Don't ban the app. That's the best way to make sure they fix this nine-year-old problem.
They plugged the "analog hole," making my life a pain-in-the-ass, only to find that HDCP is as big a hole as goatse.cx [null link]?
I'm beginning to think the hole is between any executive's ears who thinks technology can fix the human problems of the devaluation of the modern publications industry. If we have to diligently and constantly sue people to make DRM work, DRM has failed. QED. Hell, our society failed at the point when we allowed a 12-year-old to be sued instead of giving her a stern lecture, and taking away her computer privileges.
The only thing HDCP is "secure enough" for is live streaming, pay-per-view events, where it matters that it is seen in a non-recorded format. It's "good enough" to prevent rampant (i.e.: global) rebroadcast in realtime. Everything else, including the number of TV sets displaying it in a bar, can be cracked.
Technology cannot deter human nature. Technology cannot fix the fact that two-thirds of the world can't afford the product. Fix that, make people want to buy this entertainment for reasonable prices without "regional fixing," instead of trying to stop people from being dishonest. I mention regional fixing, because if we have a global economy and markets without borders, and I am not allowed to reap the clear rewards of downward price pressure because you have a regional pricing cartel, I'm going to seriously consider dishonesty.
This is because I'm getting screwed in a very one-sided arrangement, you see. Price fixing is technically illegal in my country, in fact. The industry gets away with it because there are no "global laws"... yet.
Such inequities are what has turned the global entertainment economy into a Wild West. If a product is offered at an affordable, unfixed price, the greater numbers of customers will more than make up for any media piracy.
Stop trying to seal up the "holes" with tech like HDCP; it can't be done. Concentrate on building a fair marketplace in which you can turn a fair profit.
He admits to never having used steam and yet declares he will never use it.
Used, dude, not seen.
We could equally ask why most have a prejudice against dying, never having "tried it?" Of course, people generally come to that conclusion because they've witnessed it and/or heard anecdotes about it. Fact is, direct experience and/or experimentation is often a bad way to form an opinion.
Or we could try heroin together, just to be sure, right?;^)
What the GP expressed is called a "preference," as in, "I will never try sushi because I am afraid of the potential bacteria/contamination issues." A sushi fan can reassure the person of the hygienic nature of the food to no end, but the person has a reasoned aversion based on fact (uncooked food can carry food-borne illness) which is, in the view of a sushi fan, unreasonable.
Such a fan has a prejudice against facts, however, because he's conflating facts with opinion. In the GP's Steam case, "I don't like the idea of needing a network connection to acquire games," is enough. It is factual, as Steam requires it. "My catalog could be cut off arbitrarily with no remedy" passes muster, too, as it is a part of the user agreement.
These are facts.
It is your opinion that it is unreasonable to believe that these facts will come to any great losses, and you are likely to be correct, but that is not a fact, it is merely presumption.
Prejudice happens when it is a known fact that what the person believes is utterly untrue or distorted, and they don't realize it because they are unwilling to find out, or even believe accounts refuting their prejudice. I really doubt, after all these years of Steam being around, that anyone is stalking the net badmouthing Steam having never seen or understood it.
Give me a break. The GP has a preference for an alternate means of game purchase. Those options exist and he's willing to pay more for it, and that's the end of it. It isn't remotely prejudice, just because you disagree.
The news comes just one day before the Swedish national election.
Which of course means that Assange is hopeful for gains by the Piratpartiet in this coming election. It's a rather rapid turnaround. Wasn't it a week ago that he was emphatically denying U.S. government involvement?
This is pure politics. It will be interesting to see how the elections turn out, as I think those returns will indicate how "true" his story will become.
It occurs to me that "Pong" is the "Hello World" of homebrew.
Awesome work folks. The Wii Brew scene is waiting for you to catch up, and the bar is set pretty high. I fully expect the PS 3 to meet that, and exceed it.
Bollocks! By analogy, does this mean that if my name is in the phonebook, I no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my phone calls? Does this mean that if I give the utility company my name, they no longer have to ring the doorbell to read an indoor meter, or they can be granted a warrant to pick the lock of my backyard gate?
On the heels of the "first sale" ruling, I think it's time to donate to the EFF again. The courts have gone nuts, and I am sickened by what American business interests are willing to ask of the courts, if their slimy counsel can justify it to a judge. It's disgusting.
This cannot be tolerated. Not to catch a bunch of idiots watching screen-cam bootlegs. I'd sooner outlaw the entire entertainment industry than suffer this level of invasive surrender of basic rights. We can go back to making hand shadows for each other and playing Parcheesi as far as I'm concerned.
I hope to get traction for bills which clarify that just because the "Interwebs" are involved doesn't mean we've hit the reset button on basic privacy rights, since it's clear the courts are unable to understand that the basic precedents set in telcom bills apply.
Holy Christ. This is the sort of thing that would make Shylock rub his hands together in glee.
It's not, IMO, a valid interpretation of contract law, because in the GP's contractual agreement you must receive something for that money, and you have at the point of payment received absolutely nothing but promotional materials for the licensee agreement. Therefore it isn't a contract, and if that is how things are left, it isn't even a "transaction." It's more like a con at that point. It is fraud for someone to take your money misleading you that you are getting something in return when you are actually receiving nothing, and the person you are handing money to has no power to make the actual agreement, while misrepresenting his position as a seller of goods.
Taken to its extreme, this is criminal behavior that demands action.
First thing we do is demand that all licensing agreements must be made directly between the two concerned parties, or that the intermediary representative must purchase the licenses he is going to sell, to dispose of as he sees fit (no magic EULA in the box, only the explicit terms granted by the intermediary sub-licensee only, prior to payment). It should be illegal for cash to be exchanged until an explicit agreement is signed. This is how a contract is supposed to be handled. We've put up with it for so long because the software industry hasn't pressed it. Now is the time to change that before our rights are permanently revoked in common law.
Furthermore, we must demand that such agreements may no longer be sold in stores as "purchases," and that they may not be shelved with other goods, as goods, but instead negotiated in a retail office, as any other service would be. Period. At this point, shelving boxes as if they are goods is an egregious, fraudulent misrepresentation of what happens in a software purchase. You buy things in stores, to purchase outright.
Anyone who engages in a "license only" sales model should be forced to sell it like anyone else selling a service agreement. It should be explicit that this is the character of the transaction.
It's getting to the point where you can't shop for software and such goods without a lawyer present. That point should be driven home, and the likely result is a downturn in sales when advertisers can no longer say "Own it on DVD" or "Buy Windows 7" but instead must direct people to the branch office, to negotiate a service agreement for lease of usage rights. When it becomes clear what they're actually paying money for, most people will become upset at the arrangement, and demand a say in securing better terms.
And if they don't, at least we'll have an honest, no-fraud environment where you purchase such services much the way you would purchase your automobile insurance policy.
If this is what the industry really wants, and they press for this kind of nonsense legal policy, then this is what the consumers of this country must strenuously demand from each and every transaction. With this ruling, all software "sellers" are engaging in outright fraud, taking money for things they have no actual power to deliver in kind.
If the power of resale is to be torn away from the consumer, then the illusion of sale (and the higher prices that come with it) must be torn away from the publishers/developers.
Yes. The system is inherently flawed, and it takes the vigilance of individuals, acting collectively if the unbalancing entities are large, to keep it running.
Democratic government isn't so much a "system" as it is a kludge. If you expected better of it, expect less. If you believe in it, you're being foolish.
Individuals shouldn't have to purchase anything to be given a modicum of respect. I do not feel privileged or "lucky" to have respect available to me as a product.
All a person should have to do to enjoy a vote is be able to produce something. If you have something of value to offer, you should enjoy the respect of others. Large scale entities (including government) should not interfere with this basic equation. If they do, they cannibalize their own society, in the long run.
Deciding what is "of value" is the tricky part. That's the only reason we have markets. They are not governance, they are a way of determining value.
This is something we have utterly lost sight of. At this point, it is our ability to purchase respect that garners it in our "capitalist" society, abstracted from value by a poorly governed marketplace, whether it is earned or inherited.
I do compete quite well, but it is not my privilege to do so, it is my right. My rights are being interfered with by large scale, liability shielded entities. They do not compete on a level playing field in a putative "free" market.
I don't believe in a system. I believe in maintaining a system for as long as it remains viable according to its spec. All systems, like anything else made by man, eventually fail.
No. As soon as the accumulation of power though "competitive markets" hits a critical mark, the most powerful competitor drives everyone else out of the market. All competitive capitalism leads to monopolistic plutocracy, if unchecked by some other monolithic power, usually a governmental entity.
Standard Oil, Monsanto, Archer-Daniels Midland, Goldman Sachs, IBM, then Microsoft, AT&T, then AT&T again, take your pick.
Someone has to wield the power, and the goal of capitalism is to become king of the hill and wield it, usually by knifing one's competitors in the back. Not to "compete in a market" or any of these other "free market" dogmas you seem to espouse.
Eventually, capitalism fails. It becomes oligarchy. The entire system is designed to behave that way without some other, powerful monolithic entity to keep it in check.
No solution here, just pointing out the obvious. Capitalism is defective by design, and you really have to watch who is getting power from your purchases/dollar votes. Capitalism without a popular entity to keep it in check always becomes centrally controlled (boardroom controlled) despotism. Then your only vote is a share in the stock market.
That may be fine by you, but I don't believe I should have to buy my vote in a non-democratic system slanted to keep me in my place as an unhappy, disposable consumer.
The solution to this problem is to teach users to think for themselves, and to understand what's being asked of them. You sure as hell wouldn't trust a brand new doctor if he put you in for major surgery/medications after simply taking your weight ("Ooh, you're heavy, let's put a staple in your stomach"), why would you trust some inane browser message to do the same to your computer?
Any user must know what their level of aptitude is, know their limitations, and think for themselves (which is not the same as DIY or "trust no one"), to arrive at a solution that is circumspect of the user's knowledge level, perhaps supplemented by a trusted friend or paid professional. Any real pain can generally be avoided. But the defense must be human based, and must pass a Turing test, as this cannot be automated.
Software tools work for a thinking user, they don't think for the user.
Any company who claims their product makes security simple is full of it. The idea of a computer "so simple a child can use it" is a myth, or at least an unattained aspiration. So is easy security, for the foreseeable future. It takes at least one thinking adult human being to design, operate and maintain any machine.
Specifically, users also need to know the level of severity of "privilege escalation," and what constitutes such escalation in their environment. It's like signing a contract. You don't sign one without reading it. Sometimes all it takes is a single mouse click, and that's ridiculous. At a bare minimum, a user should know why they're escalating, what process is getting the escalation, and that it is warranted. They have to read the contract.
UAC leans too far toward "one click" casualness/simplicity, IMO. I much prefer the way sudo works. Since it requires a password, and generally GUI implementations accent that "administrative tasks" are about to be performed and the password is required, it puts a bullet point on the level of importance of what is being asked.
Interesting. So the police "leaked" sensitive details improperly to the press, which then improperly published/distributed the information before the full story was ready for publication?
Both sides do not stone teenage girls to death, nor bury homosexuals, nor blow up artwork for the express purpose of destroying it.
So how you get from "torturing people in Gitmo" to "everything both sides do" is madness. And to put torturing a terrorist for information that will protect an innocent life on par in the ethical scale with burying people alive because "God" told you to? That's just wrong.
What now? Cave drawings are offensive? So is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or Rodin's "The Thinker?" So was the entire portraiture of Renoir? Who did Seurat offend with his "Sunday Afternoon?" Who's offended by (most) still life or landscape paintings?
Art doesn't have to be offensive to be art, it just has to be offensive to make headlines in a sensationalist, pop-culture media. All art has to do, in general, is communicate something to its audience that cannot be communicated in any other medium.
For regular old Doom, it was the cursor keys. For Quake as well, in it's original offering, IIRC.
Plus "," and "." were strafe. Joy.
Anyone who wants to repeat this experiment, and not a "purist," should grab gzDoom, which is zDoom with OpenGL rendering and light effects. Works great in Windows with the original.WAD files. Even runs "Strife," which is a pretty cool Doom engine game from a history perspective.
I would just set the controls to whatever FPS style you like. The original controls for Doom and Quake were horrible.
Wow. Let the "cyberwar" begin. I don't think the gov't planned for this sort of thing in their games.
Maybe we should worry a bit less about locking down our power plants and start worrying a bit more about locking down state secrets. That's not to say that either is more or less important, but that we've become a bit lax about some very important secrets if this is such a fuss.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in the fine FTFY tradition what this "Vista Magazine" guy really is saying is:
"It kills me to say this: The dream of Vista as a major desktop OS is now pretty much dead."
Figures. Looks like he bet on the wrong horse, and the jury is still out on Seven. He'd better hope that succeeds, or he's out of a job.
--
Toro
So basically, our galaxy is rendered in a 3d skybox?
Hey God! 1999 called...
LOL
I believe you mean "Bean Gogh."
The new application works by intercepting the so-called Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcasts (ADS-B) transmitted by most passenger aircraft to a new satellite tracking system that supplements or, in some countries, replaces radar...
After the September 11 attacks in America in 2001, a senior Federal Aviation Administration official warned that ADS-B technology could be used by terrorists.
So, let me get this straight? Someone, nine years ago warned of how this information could be used, and the FAA didn't insist on, say, adding end-to-end encryption and/or authentication to the spec? Nine years later, the security threat is that any schmuck with an iPhone can tap into it?
Flash: If you leave the front door of your house unlocked, no one needs to "break in." Why do we have the same standards of security for the flight telemetry of commercial jets?
The security threat is the system spec, the folks that designed it, the administrator who signed off on its roll-out, and the attitudes that allow "professionals" to continue to fail to take even basic advice about data security.
Don't ban the app. That's the best way to make sure they fix this nine-year-old problem.
Blockheads.
--
Toro
They plugged the "analog hole," making my life a pain-in-the-ass, only to find that HDCP is as big a hole as goatse.cx [null link]?
I'm beginning to think the hole is between any executive's ears who thinks technology can fix the human problems of the devaluation of the modern publications industry. If we have to diligently and constantly sue people to make DRM work, DRM has failed. QED. Hell, our society failed at the point when we allowed a 12-year-old to be sued instead of giving her a stern lecture, and taking away her computer privileges.
The only thing HDCP is "secure enough" for is live streaming, pay-per-view events, where it matters that it is seen in a non-recorded format. It's "good enough" to prevent rampant (i.e.: global) rebroadcast in realtime. Everything else, including the number of TV sets displaying it in a bar, can be cracked.
Technology cannot deter human nature. Technology cannot fix the fact that two-thirds of the world can't afford the product. Fix that, make people want to buy this entertainment for reasonable prices without "regional fixing," instead of trying to stop people from being dishonest. I mention regional fixing, because if we have a global economy and markets without borders, and I am not allowed to reap the clear rewards of downward price pressure because you have a regional pricing cartel, I'm going to seriously consider dishonesty.
This is because I'm getting screwed in a very one-sided arrangement, you see. Price fixing is technically illegal in my country, in fact. The industry gets away with it because there are no "global laws"... yet.
Such inequities are what has turned the global entertainment economy into a Wild West. If a product is offered at an affordable, unfixed price, the greater numbers of customers will more than make up for any media piracy.
Stop trying to seal up the "holes" with tech like HDCP; it can't be done. Concentrate on building a fair marketplace in which you can turn a fair profit.
--
Toro
It wasn't racism, but it is prejudice.
He admits to never having used steam and yet declares he will never use it.
Used, dude, not seen.
We could equally ask why most have a prejudice against dying, never having "tried it?" Of course, people generally come to that conclusion because they've witnessed it and/or heard anecdotes about it. Fact is, direct experience and/or experimentation is often a bad way to form an opinion.
Or we could try heroin together, just to be sure, right? ;^)
What the GP expressed is called a "preference," as in, "I will never try sushi because I am afraid of the potential bacteria/contamination issues." A sushi fan can reassure the person of the hygienic nature of the food to no end, but the person has a reasoned aversion based on fact (uncooked food can carry food-borne illness) which is, in the view of a sushi fan, unreasonable.
Such a fan has a prejudice against facts, however, because he's conflating facts with opinion. In the GP's Steam case, "I don't like the idea of needing a network connection to acquire games," is enough. It is factual, as Steam requires it. "My catalog could be cut off arbitrarily with no remedy" passes muster, too, as it is a part of the user agreement.
These are facts.
It is your opinion that it is unreasonable to believe that these facts will come to any great losses, and you are likely to be correct, but that is not a fact, it is merely presumption.
Prejudice happens when it is a known fact that what the person believes is utterly untrue or distorted, and they don't realize it because they are unwilling to find out, or even believe accounts refuting their prejudice. I really doubt, after all these years of Steam being around, that anyone is stalking the net badmouthing Steam having never seen or understood it.
Give me a break. The GP has a preference for an alternate means of game purchase. Those options exist and he's willing to pay more for it, and that's the end of it. It isn't remotely prejudice, just because you disagree.
--
Toro
The news comes just one day before the Swedish national election.
Which of course means that Assange is hopeful for gains by the Piratpartiet in this coming election. It's a rather rapid turnaround. Wasn't it a week ago that he was emphatically denying U.S. government involvement?
This is pure politics. It will be interesting to see how the elections turn out, as I think those returns will indicate how "true" his story will become.
--
Toro
It occurs to me that "Pong" is the "Hello World" of homebrew.
Awesome work folks. The Wii Brew scene is waiting for you to catch up, and the bar is set pretty high. I fully expect the PS 3 to meet that, and exceed it.
--
Toro
Bollocks! By analogy, does this mean that if my name is in the phonebook, I no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my phone calls? Does this mean that if I give the utility company my name, they no longer have to ring the doorbell to read an indoor meter, or they can be granted a warrant to pick the lock of my backyard gate?
On the heels of the "first sale" ruling, I think it's time to donate to the EFF again. The courts have gone nuts, and I am sickened by what American business interests are willing to ask of the courts, if their slimy counsel can justify it to a judge. It's disgusting.
This cannot be tolerated. Not to catch a bunch of idiots watching screen-cam bootlegs. I'd sooner outlaw the entire entertainment industry than suffer this level of invasive surrender of basic rights. We can go back to making hand shadows for each other and playing Parcheesi as far as I'm concerned.
I hope to get traction for bills which clarify that just because the "Interwebs" are involved doesn't mean we've hit the reset button on basic privacy rights, since it's clear the courts are unable to understand that the basic precedents set in telcom bills apply.
--
Toro
Holy Christ. This is the sort of thing that would make Shylock rub his hands together in glee.
It's not, IMO, a valid interpretation of contract law, because in the GP's contractual agreement you must receive something for that money, and you have at the point of payment received absolutely nothing but promotional materials for the licensee agreement. Therefore it isn't a contract, and if that is how things are left, it isn't even a "transaction." It's more like a con at that point. It is fraud for someone to take your money misleading you that you are getting something in return when you are actually receiving nothing, and the person you are handing money to has no power to make the actual agreement, while misrepresenting his position as a seller of goods.
Taken to its extreme, this is criminal behavior that demands action.
First thing we do is demand that all licensing agreements must be made directly between the two concerned parties, or that the intermediary representative must purchase the licenses he is going to sell, to dispose of as he sees fit (no magic EULA in the box, only the explicit terms granted by the intermediary sub-licensee only, prior to payment). It should be illegal for cash to be exchanged until an explicit agreement is signed. This is how a contract is supposed to be handled. We've put up with it for so long because the software industry hasn't pressed it. Now is the time to change that before our rights are permanently revoked in common law.
Furthermore, we must demand that such agreements may no longer be sold in stores as "purchases," and that they may not be shelved with other goods, as goods, but instead negotiated in a retail office, as any other service would be. Period. At this point, shelving boxes as if they are goods is an egregious, fraudulent misrepresentation of what happens in a software purchase. You buy things in stores, to purchase outright.
Anyone who engages in a "license only" sales model should be forced to sell it like anyone else selling a service agreement. It should be explicit that this is the character of the transaction.
It's getting to the point where you can't shop for software and such goods without a lawyer present. That point should be driven home, and the likely result is a downturn in sales when advertisers can no longer say "Own it on DVD" or "Buy Windows 7" but instead must direct people to the branch office, to negotiate a service agreement for lease of usage rights. When it becomes clear what they're actually paying money for, most people will become upset at the arrangement, and demand a say in securing better terms.
And if they don't, at least we'll have an honest, no-fraud environment where you purchase such services much the way you would purchase your automobile insurance policy.
If this is what the industry really wants, and they press for this kind of nonsense legal policy, then this is what the consumers of this country must strenuously demand from each and every transaction. With this ruling, all software "sellers" are engaging in outright fraud, taking money for things they have no actual power to deliver in kind.
If the power of resale is to be torn away from the consumer, then the illusion of sale (and the higher prices that come with it) must be torn away from the publishers/developers.
--
Toro
"Morris" wants a word with you.
I'd like all my British friends to light up a fag in honor of Microsoft.
--
Toro
I think you might need some Vaseline to go with that dry wit.
--
Toro
Yes. The system is inherently flawed, and it takes the vigilance of individuals, acting collectively if the unbalancing entities are large, to keep it running.
Democratic government isn't so much a "system" as it is a kludge. If you expected better of it, expect less. If you believe in it, you're being foolish.
Individuals shouldn't have to purchase anything to be given a modicum of respect. I do not feel privileged or "lucky" to have respect available to me as a product.
All a person should have to do to enjoy a vote is be able to produce something. If you have something of value to offer, you should enjoy the respect of others. Large scale entities (including government) should not interfere with this basic equation. If they do, they cannibalize their own society, in the long run.
Deciding what is "of value" is the tricky part. That's the only reason we have markets. They are not governance, they are a way of determining value.
This is something we have utterly lost sight of. At this point, it is our ability to purchase respect that garners it in our "capitalist" society, abstracted from value by a poorly governed marketplace, whether it is earned or inherited.
I do compete quite well, but it is not my privilege to do so, it is my right. My rights are being interfered with by large scale, liability shielded entities. They do not compete on a level playing field in a putative "free" market.
I don't believe in a system. I believe in maintaining a system for as long as it remains viable according to its spec. All systems, like anything else made by man, eventually fail.
--
Toro
No. As soon as the accumulation of power though "competitive markets" hits a critical mark, the most powerful competitor drives everyone else out of the market. All competitive capitalism leads to monopolistic plutocracy, if unchecked by some other monolithic power, usually a governmental entity.
Standard Oil, Monsanto, Archer-Daniels Midland, Goldman Sachs, IBM, then Microsoft, AT&T, then AT&T again, take your pick.
Someone has to wield the power, and the goal of capitalism is to become king of the hill and wield it, usually by knifing one's competitors in the back. Not to "compete in a market" or any of these other "free market" dogmas you seem to espouse.
Eventually, capitalism fails. It becomes oligarchy. The entire system is designed to behave that way without some other, powerful monolithic entity to keep it in check.
No solution here, just pointing out the obvious. Capitalism is defective by design, and you really have to watch who is getting power from your purchases/dollar votes. Capitalism without a popular entity to keep it in check always becomes centrally controlled (boardroom controlled) despotism. Then your only vote is a share in the stock market.
That may be fine by you, but I don't believe I should have to buy my vote in a non-democratic system slanted to keep me in my place as an unhappy, disposable consumer.
--
Toro
The solution to this problem is to teach users to think for themselves, and to understand what's being asked of them. You sure as hell wouldn't trust a brand new doctor if he put you in for major surgery/medications after simply taking your weight ("Ooh, you're heavy, let's put a staple in your stomach"), why would you trust some inane browser message to do the same to your computer?
Any user must know what their level of aptitude is, know their limitations, and think for themselves (which is not the same as DIY or "trust no one"), to arrive at a solution that is circumspect of the user's knowledge level, perhaps supplemented by a trusted friend or paid professional. Any real pain can generally be avoided. But the defense must be human based, and must pass a Turing test, as this cannot be automated.
Software tools work for a thinking user, they don't think for the user.
Any company who claims their product makes security simple is full of it. The idea of a computer "so simple a child can use it" is a myth, or at least an unattained aspiration. So is easy security, for the foreseeable future. It takes at least one thinking adult human being to design, operate and maintain any machine.
Specifically, users also need to know the level of severity of "privilege escalation," and what constitutes such escalation in their environment. It's like signing a contract. You don't sign one without reading it. Sometimes all it takes is a single mouse click, and that's ridiculous. At a bare minimum, a user should know why they're escalating, what process is getting the escalation, and that it is warranted. They have to read the contract.
UAC leans too far toward "one click" casualness/simplicity, IMO. I much prefer the way sudo works. Since it requires a password, and generally GUI implementations accent that "administrative tasks" are about to be performed and the password is required, it puts a bullet point on the level of importance of what is being asked.
--
Toro
"Trade baby, trade" is more likely to be the new slogan. I can hear the selloffs now.
--
Toro
Interesting. So the police "leaked" sensitive details improperly to the press, which then improperly published/distributed the information before the full story was ready for publication?
There's a lesson in irony to be learned there.
--
Toro
This is a very interesting case. I'd like to have a look at those "racy clips" for myself so I can, um, decide how I feel about the matter.
Signed,
Any guy, anywhere
--
Toro
EA should do something really controversial. I'll buy the game when I can play and/or shoot Muhammad.
--
Toro
Both sides do not stone teenage girls to death, nor bury homosexuals, nor blow up artwork for the express purpose of destroying it.
So how you get from "torturing people in Gitmo" to "everything both sides do" is madness. And to put torturing a terrorist for information that will protect an innocent life on par in the ethical scale with burying people alive because "God" told you to? That's just wrong.
Get some perspective.
--
Toro
What now? Cave drawings are offensive? So is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or Rodin's "The Thinker?" So was the entire portraiture of Renoir? Who did Seurat offend with his "Sunday Afternoon?" Who's offended by (most) still life or landscape paintings?
Art doesn't have to be offensive to be art, it just has to be offensive to make headlines in a sensationalist, pop-culture media. All art has to do, in general, is communicate something to its audience that cannot be communicated in any other medium.
--
Toro
So basically iPhone users have fscked their brains out? Well, there's a surprise!
(it's a joke, folks)
--
Toro
For regular old Doom, it was the cursor keys. For Quake as well, in it's original offering, IIRC.
Plus "," and "." were strafe. Joy.
Anyone who wants to repeat this experiment, and not a "purist," should grab gzDoom, which is zDoom with OpenGL rendering and light effects. Works great in Windows with the original .WAD files. Even runs "Strife," which is a pretty cool Doom engine game from a history perspective.
I would just set the controls to whatever FPS style you like. The original controls for Doom and Quake were horrible.
--
Toro
Wow. Let the "cyberwar" begin. I don't think the gov't planned for this sort of thing in their games.
Maybe we should worry a bit less about locking down our power plants and start worrying a bit more about locking down state secrets. That's not to say that either is more or less important, but that we've become a bit lax about some very important secrets if this is such a fuss.
This is going to get interesting.
--
Toro