And yet in those "70 years of peace" over 12 million people have been killed in war by American soldiers in 19 different wars. That's just the ones killed by Americans.
I'm sure many of the people on the receiving end of this "peace" feel that form of "leadership" isn't helping them much.
The most likely outcome is that MS-US simply takes the data, which is likely accessible to them remotely anyway, and nobody from either country gets in any trouble. Some people in Ireland make a big stink about it, but no policies ever get changed, and it's forgotten about before the next sitting of the EU parliament.
Conversely of course, if the roles were reversed, the data would never leave the US, and anyone in Ireland who tried would be extradited to the USA to face trial.
Unfortunately the world is not a fair place, it's full of double standards, and the USA is the king of exploiting those double standards. We have example after example after example of exactly these sorts of things happening, and yet each time we pretend that this time is somehow different, and that things won't go the way they've gone every single previous time. Newsflash, things aren't different, and they won't go a different way.
Eventually some other governments will start to get fed-up and push back, but I've seen no indication that's going to happen any time soon. No government wants to be seen to piss off the USA, even if it would be better for the entire planet in the long run.
Unfortunately for the entire world, America has always been able to do so in the past, so they see no reason not to continue doing so.
American law applies worldwide, all other laws stop at the US border. The only real question is, how far will the rest of the world let that go before they start to push back? so far most of the rest of the world tends to just roll over and let the US have their way. I don't anticipate that to continue forever though.
The s5 was so popular that the outcry when they discontinued it forced them to somewhat resurrect it. I say somewhat because the s5 neo isn't as good as the original s5, they dropped the ir transmitter, and usb 3, and put a weaker processor in it, but it still flew off the shelves. My wife is using a neo because she couldn't get the original.
With each generation of phone, more and more features are removed. Why would someone willingly downgrade to a new phone?
My Note 4 has: - a wider screen than any available today - a user replaceable battery (I'm on #3) - an IR transmitter - an easy to hold faux-leather back that isn't slippery - a headphone jack - HDMI output (via MHL) - an SD card slot
Almost all new phones get rid of the majority of that list (if not all of it).
It's not that people don't want to UPGRADE, it's that people are sick of seeing the newer phones as a DOWNGRADE from where they already are!
Where I am, building code prohibits wood for buildings over 4 stories (though they're talking about allowing it for up to 5 or even 6 because the builders don't want to pay for concrete, and their lobbying is amazingly effective) Combined with the requirement for all buildings over 4 stories to have elevators, we have a ton of 4 story apartment buildings. We've also proven repeatedly that wood is a HORRIBLE material for any multi-family building, as we've had quite a few burn to the ground leaving hundreds of people homeless. Of course each time they say that if only they'd made this minor tweak to the building code the disaster wouldn't have happened, but then the next one happens despite whatever tweak they say will solve it.
The point is that it's stupid to have to manually tell each page that your computer is capable of being a computer. It should assume that if you got that far that you're using a device capable of browsing web pages and not neuter the pages!
Sure, I can fake my user agent string, but what a ridiculous world we live in if the only way to browse the web in a useful fashion is to have to trick each page in to doing what should be it's default operating mode.
There is absolutely ZERO excuse for ANY page to have a "mobile view". Cell phones are ALWAYS better off with the full experience.
To be fair, the other levels are no better, have you seen some of the rulings by the supreme court? Apparently they don't even know that the US has a constitution, let alone what it contains.
There's a reason these scumbags go after small defendants, they can't afford to put up a big defence, and once you've won a few of these you have a precedent that makes it hard for the big guys to resist even with their armies of lawyers. They're also careful to never go after the REALLY big guys because even though they might win with the precedents they've already set, they'd draw too much attention and the laws might get fixed. (Which is why Google hasn't been shut down due to all the piracy they enable, or Microsoft, or Apple, Law makers would have no choice then but to notice that the IP system is horribly broken)
Many, many companies already remove paid for features without a court order and don't get in any trouble, so I doubt ones that have a court order are worried. (Sure Sony got in trouble, but it was pretty minor trouble, and they're in the definite minority actually losing anything at all)
Long gone are the days when you can expect to have all the functionality you paid for in a product, or have any ownership rights at all after forking over your money. You get whatever the company feels like giving you, and that can change at ANY time. Don't like it? tough, you don't matter. (I mean "vote with your wallet" and go to the competition, where usually there is no competition, and if there is, they probably do exactly the same thing anyway)
In an ideal world you'd be right. But these decisions are always far more political than practical, so it's really about which one the politicians think will a) give them more kickbacks and/or b) get them re-elected
Which one is the better option usually doesn't even factor in to the decision.
I'd far rather let secure russian AV software on my computer than any software with a US connection. At least I know it isn't tainted by the NSA.
The world is waking up, US IT products are no longer a first choice, but now a last resort, not to be trusted. It's well known that the American government has no concept of rights or privacy, and that all US vendors are compromised by default. Precautions must be taken if using US products.
They are free to tell citizens of security risks, but so far they refuse to do so.
Seems far more likely that the only "security risk" is Kaspersky's refusal to implement NSA back doors.
In free societies governments don't hide their motives, if they find something like this, they do the prudent thing and show their evidence. The fact they refuse to do so implies that it would make them look worse than it would make Kaspersky look. Why do you think that is?
So in other words, as in all authoritarian regimes, secrecy trumps truth.
Glad I don't live in the USA!
It's far more likely that the reason they refuse to disclose the supposed vulnerability is that the only vulnerability is the refusal to implement the NSA's requested back doors.
The rest of the world is watching all this with interest, and so far, the evidence points to Kaspersky being among the most trustworthy products on the market. So far they're the only ones who seem to have told the US government to pound sand, and so far, nobody has found any evidence of any other nefarious goings on.
Remember, "the NSA doesn't want you to use it" in most cases is a glowing recommendation to use it (short of someone giving some proof of actual issues)
Font size and style are not interactivity any more than a newspaper is interactive. The same with images that are included in the email. None of these require executing code on the receiver's computer, nor reaching out to external servers, only displaying text. Clickable links are the same thing, you put in an indicator that the link should be clickable and where it should go, but my computer decides what to do with it from there. Where it all falls down is as soon as you allow any scripting or applications within the email, or anything pulled from a remote server.
Your line of "pure text" is no less arbitrary than mine of "no executable code and no remote content"
Because it's true. There is no relationship between the necessity for products to get from A to B and the amount of traffic on the road between A and B. The 2 are not related in any way.
The one thing this would do is decrease the time it takes to deliver those goods, with side benefits of decreased pollution from those trucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry they missed when aiming the sports car at Mars, it's headed for the asteroid belt instead.
That said, "why" is a valid question, and one which seems somewhat lacking in the talk here.
I'm assuming it's just some sort of PR stunt, but is there some practical reason I'm overlooking?
And yet in those "70 years of peace" over 12 million people have been killed in war by American soldiers in 19 different wars. That's just the ones killed by Americans.
I'm sure many of the people on the receiving end of this "peace" feel that form of "leadership" isn't helping them much.
Except we all know that won't happen.
The most likely outcome is that MS-US simply takes the data, which is likely accessible to them remotely anyway, and nobody from either country gets in any trouble. Some people in Ireland make a big stink about it, but no policies ever get changed, and it's forgotten about before the next sitting of the EU parliament.
Conversely of course, if the roles were reversed, the data would never leave the US, and anyone in Ireland who tried would be extradited to the USA to face trial.
Unfortunately the world is not a fair place, it's full of double standards, and the USA is the king of exploiting those double standards. We have example after example after example of exactly these sorts of things happening, and yet each time we pretend that this time is somehow different, and that things won't go the way they've gone every single previous time. Newsflash, things aren't different, and they won't go a different way.
Eventually some other governments will start to get fed-up and push back, but I've seen no indication that's going to happen any time soon. No government wants to be seen to piss off the USA, even if it would be better for the entire planet in the long run.
Sorry, America, but you can't have it both ways.
Unfortunately for the entire world, America has always been able to do so in the past, so they see no reason not to continue doing so.
American law applies worldwide, all other laws stop at the US border. The only real question is, how far will the rest of the world let that go before they start to push back? so far most of the rest of the world tends to just roll over and let the US have their way. I don't anticipate that to continue forever though.
It's also a pain to get the customers entirely out of the plane afterwards, some of those customers really stick to the carpet.
The s5 was so popular that the outcry when they discontinued it forced them to somewhat resurrect it. I say somewhat because the s5 neo isn't as good as the original s5, they dropped the ir transmitter, and usb 3, and put a weaker processor in it, but it still flew off the shelves. My wife is using a neo because she couldn't get the original.
With each generation of phone, more and more features are removed. Why would someone willingly downgrade to a new phone?
My Note 4 has:
- a wider screen than any available today
- a user replaceable battery (I'm on #3)
- an IR transmitter
- an easy to hold faux-leather back that isn't slippery
- a headphone jack
- HDMI output (via MHL)
- an SD card slot
Almost all new phones get rid of the majority of that list (if not all of it).
It's not that people don't want to UPGRADE, it's that people are sick of seeing the newer phones as a DOWNGRADE from where they already are!
Where I am, building code prohibits wood for buildings over 4 stories (though they're talking about allowing it for up to 5 or even 6 because the builders don't want to pay for concrete, and their lobbying is amazingly effective) Combined with the requirement for all buildings over 4 stories to have elevators, we have a ton of 4 story apartment buildings. We've also proven repeatedly that wood is a HORRIBLE material for any multi-family building, as we've had quite a few burn to the ground leaving hundreds of people homeless. Of course each time they say that if only they'd made this minor tweak to the building code the disaster wouldn't have happened, but then the next one happens despite whatever tweak they say will solve it.
Tell that to the annual budget review, and to the taxpayers when you try to justify the increase.
It's ALWAYS about money. The question is, how much?
The point is that it's stupid to have to manually tell each page that your computer is capable of being a computer. It should assume that if you got that far that you're using a device capable of browsing web pages and not neuter the pages!
Sure, I can fake my user agent string, but what a ridiculous world we live in if the only way to browse the web in a useful fashion is to have to trick each page in to doing what should be it's default operating mode.
There is absolutely ZERO excuse for ANY page to have a "mobile view". Cell phones are ALWAYS better off with the full experience.
To be fair, the other levels are no better, have you seen some of the rulings by the supreme court? Apparently they don't even know that the US has a constitution, let alone what it contains.
There's a reason these scumbags go after small defendants, they can't afford to put up a big defence, and once you've won a few of these you have a precedent that makes it hard for the big guys to resist even with their armies of lawyers.
They're also careful to never go after the REALLY big guys because even though they might win with the precedents they've already set, they'd draw too much attention and the laws might get fixed. (Which is why Google hasn't been shut down due to all the piracy they enable, or Microsoft, or Apple, Law makers would have no choice then but to notice that the IP system is horribly broken)
Many, many companies already remove paid for features without a court order and don't get in any trouble, so I doubt ones that have a court order are worried. (Sure Sony got in trouble, but it was pretty minor trouble, and they're in the definite minority actually losing anything at all)
Long gone are the days when you can expect to have all the functionality you paid for in a product, or have any ownership rights at all after forking over your money. You get whatever the company feels like giving you, and that can change at ANY time. Don't like it? tough, you don't matter. (I mean "vote with your wallet" and go to the competition, where usually there is no competition, and if there is, they probably do exactly the same thing anyway)
In an ideal world you'd be right. But these decisions are always far more political than practical, so it's really about which one the politicians think will
a) give them more kickbacks
and/or
b) get them re-elected
Which one is the better option usually doesn't even factor in to the decision.
And I want that feature in my email why?
I'd far rather let secure russian AV software on my computer than any software with a US connection. At least I know it isn't tainted by the NSA.
The world is waking up, US IT products are no longer a first choice, but now a last resort, not to be trusted. It's well known that the American government has no concept of rights or privacy, and that all US vendors are compromised by default. Precautions must be taken if using US products.
They are free to tell citizens of security risks, but so far they refuse to do so.
Seems far more likely that the only "security risk" is Kaspersky's refusal to implement NSA back doors.
In free societies governments don't hide their motives, if they find something like this, they do the prudent thing and show their evidence. The fact they refuse to do so implies that it would make them look worse than it would make Kaspersky look. Why do you think that is?
So in other words, as in all authoritarian regimes, secrecy trumps truth.
Glad I don't live in the USA!
It's far more likely that the reason they refuse to disclose the supposed vulnerability is that the only vulnerability is the refusal to implement the NSA's requested back doors.
The rest of the world is watching all this with interest, and so far, the evidence points to Kaspersky being among the most trustworthy products on the market. So far they're the only ones who seem to have told the US government to pound sand, and so far, nobody has found any evidence of any other nefarious goings on.
Remember, "the NSA doesn't want you to use it" in most cases is a glowing recommendation to use it (short of someone giving some proof of actual issues)
"national security trumps all of this" is the part that only applies in authoritarian dictatorships.
In free societies "national security" doesn't trump facts and reason.
Why would anyone want it to be dynamic based on interaction?
People don't want their emails to be interactive.
I don't want the font size to change because I clicked something!
Font size and style are not interactivity any more than a newspaper is interactive. The same with images that are included in the email. None of these require executing code on the receiver's computer, nor reaching out to external servers, only displaying text. Clickable links are the same thing, you put in an indicator that the link should be clickable and where it should go, but my computer decides what to do with it from there. Where it all falls down is as soon as you allow any scripting or applications within the email, or anything pulled from a remote server.
Your line of "pure text" is no less arbitrary than mine of "no executable code and no remote content"
Wow... that's some convoluted mental gymnastics to try to justify charging more money for public transit!
I'm sorry, we can't give you free transit because you might decide to buy more stuff from the store. You just try that argument. Go ahead!
Funny, the government isn't recommending against EVERY OTHER piece of anti-virus software out there.
Because it's true. There is no relationship between the necessity for products to get from A to B and the amount of traffic on the road between A and B. The 2 are not related in any way.
The one thing this would do is decrease the time it takes to deliver those goods, with side benefits of decreased pollution from those trucks.
Only in an authoritarian dictatorship... oh wait...