I don't sweat that so much. My personal email is right there above this message, after all. Good luck guessing my random as-strong-as-allowed password on any given site, though.
Yea, it seems like I am getting an email monthly from one site or another I use telling me they were compromised and to change my passwords.
...usually phrased like "Hi 'YOUR_USERNAME'. Your password, 'FOOLMETWICE', might have been compromised. Click here to change it.".
The password manager I use has a "security audit" tab that lists sites using the same password, and passwords that I haven't changed in more than a few months, a year, or several years. I fixed all the dupes by giving them each unique passwords, and I have a monthly reminder to myself to update all the old ones.
What bugs the shit out of me is that people who should know better act as though DRM isn't impossible. Quick, describe a system to me in which I can give you my data but you can only process it in ways I approve of. That means that you can't copy-and-paste it, or even just take a film photo of the screen and scan that in. Seriously. Working copy protection cannot be implemented in this universe, perhaps short of every participating computer having a quantum component that stops working as soon as you observe it.
No, I wouldn't secure my personal data with Digital Restrictions Management. That's insane and can't possibly work. I'd secure my personal data with contracts that say "this is what you can do with it, and I'm going to sue you into oblivion if I find it on the Internet". That's the only known way of restricting how another party uses your information.
1. Apple has spent countless millions on user interface research, whereas Ubuntu seems to be taking advice from a blind guy out behind the Taco Bell, and
2. Apple has a sense of taste and recognizes that different UIs are appropriate in different places. If Apple made shoes, they'd have both Italian loafers and tech sandals. If Ubuntu made shoes, they'd offer only the Air Wingtip line.
A synonym for "loophole" is "legal". The law said "if this, then that", and someone decided to meet the predicate so that they could use the result. Blame the politicians for not clearly specifying their intent, not the people who obeyed the law as it was written.
I'm not personally invested in the legal systems of those countries, and American law is both the subject and hand and the subject I'm commenting on. I would much rather err on the side of making a police agency's job harder than on making it easier to trick or coerce a citizen into implicating themselves.
I have friends and family who work in law enforcement agencies in various capacities. I am in no reasonable way "anti police". Not in the slightest. I've never personally had problems with getting blamed for something I didn't do, nor have any of my friends ever told me stories about it happening to them. But despite all that, I'm not saying a word to a policeman in any official capacity without my lawyer being present. As others have said, I'm not looking out for the best interests of society; if push comes to shove, I'm exercising whatever rights I can to stay out of trouble. I would expect you and everyone else to do the same, and as a bonus, I think that pattern of behavior as a whole is better for society.
a. One where police can compel anyone to give testimony about themselves so that all crimes are solved by someone confessing to them, or
b. One where innocent people have the right to STFU and the state is required to actually do police work, interview witnesses, gather evidence, and otherwise build a case against suspects?
The only way you can be opposed to the 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself is to be completely ignorant of history and utterly devoid of imagination. Frankly, there wasn't a single argument above that wasn't utter bullshit, a troll, or the ramblings of someone who wanted to take a contrary stance just for the sake of being contrary.
That's an interesting topic of conversation, but how could you possibly enforce it? Suppose I sue you. We go to lunch, sit down, and hash out our differences: "Tell you what, fredprado. Let's just end this. If you promise not to build that fence and quit yelling at my kid for walking down the sidewalk, I'll drop the suit. Can we make a gentleman's agreement?" We shake hands, go our separate ways, and both follow through on the agreement.
First, how would you craft a law enforcing that our private negotiations have to be part of the permanent record? Second, how would you square that with our 1st amendment right to publish (or not publish) the terms of our agreements?
How is a company using the government to coerce other companies to obey some nebulous (and dubious) "intellectual property" rights even remotely capitalist? Fascist, maybe, but not capitalist.
Start looking at the folks, say two standard deviations from the mean.
Please don't. That turns into stack ranking, and we see how that worked out for Microsoft etc. There will always be a top 5% of prescribers, by definition. If all of them stop prescribing, there will be a new top 5%. Once the DEA starts looking at those practices - most of which will have legitimate excuses, like "we're a pain clinic" or "we see lots of terminal cancer patients" - it will badger the living shit out of those physicians until they want to get out of the business.
If I'm ever dying of abdominal cancer, I don't want my doctor to be afraid to give me heroic doses of oxycontin just because he doesn't want to skew his numbers. I don't want the DEA involved with that decision.
The developers of GNOME seem to have some awful kind of Mac envy.
...and an utter lack of understanding of why people like using Macs. They seem to conflate "simple because we devoted lots of research into making a streamlined interface that handles 99% of common use cases" with "simple because we removed everything else".
And for power users, fingerprint plus passcode is more secure than just one or the other. I'd love to see a setting like "require both fingerprint and passcode to initially unlock the phone. Lock the phone immediately when it goes to sleep, but allow it to be unlocked with either passcode or fingerprint for up to five minutes."
I'd set this in a heartbeat. Basically, it'd be more secure than any current options when initially unlocking the phone. It'd also be more convenient than the "require a passcode immediately when the phone goes to sleep" setting, and more secure than the "don't require a password for the next x minutes" settings. This is how I'd like the system to work.
Not to dispute your paranoid premise, but... I've personally helped out with a "Child Identification Program" activity where we made videos of kids, took some standardized pictures, took fingerprints (using paper and ink, not digital scanners), and collected a cheek swab DNA sample. When we were done, every single shred of data we collected was gathered up and given to the parents for safekeeping. We had neither the interest nor the capability of storing "backups". Please don't talk parents out of making identification kits of their kids.
These people are not simply embracing it, but doing so for their own personal reasons i.e. Be first on the block to have one (which is a damn silly thing to do with a considerable investment, which most iPhones are.)
I'd probably be standing in line just for the fun of it if my phone were due for an upgrade anyway. I certainly wouldn't be afraid of buying an Apple iProduct.0, given their reputation for handling customer issues without hassle. If you buy an iPhone 5S tomorrow, it's about as safe a bet as you can get in the tech industry that Apple will take care of any problems you have with it.
Yeah, standing in line to buy a mass-produced consumer item is silly on the face of it. But if you were going to get one anyway, and you can be part of some launch-day fun (and maybe even get one for free just for being near the front of the line), why not? A lot of people camp out to see movies at their opening even when they could see the same film more easily the next day.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote some Perl that looked like the output of AES once.
I don't sweat that so much. My personal email is right there above this message, after all. Good luck guessing my random as-strong-as-allowed password on any given site, though.
Yea, it seems like I am getting an email monthly from one site or another I use telling me they were compromised and to change my passwords.
...usually phrased like "Hi 'YOUR_USERNAME'. Your password, 'FOOLMETWICE', might have been compromised. Click here to change it.".
The password manager I use has a "security audit" tab that lists sites using the same password, and passwords that I haven't changed in more than a few months, a year, or several years. I fixed all the dupes by giving them each unique passwords, and I have a monthly reminder to myself to update all the old ones.
Mine does too, which is great for sites like Github where it's not actually a sign of mental illness to post things that render in monospace.
What bugs the shit out of me is that people who should know better act as though DRM isn't impossible. Quick, describe a system to me in which I can give you my data but you can only process it in ways I approve of. That means that you can't copy-and-paste it, or even just take a film photo of the screen and scan that in. Seriously. Working copy protection cannot be implemented in this universe, perhaps short of every participating computer having a quantum component that stops working as soon as you observe it.
No, I wouldn't secure my personal data with Digital Restrictions Management. That's insane and can't possibly work. I'd secure my personal data with contracts that say "this is what you can do with it, and I'm going to sue you into oblivion if I find it on the Internet". That's the only known way of restricting how another party uses your information.
Windows 8 is the best desktop environment there is.
Well, except for a few Linux distros, OS X, and any other version of Windows ever. Excluding those, it's not terrible.
I can't see that happening, because:
1. Apple has spent countless millions on user interface research, whereas Ubuntu seems to be taking advice from a blind guy out behind the Taco Bell, and
2. Apple has a sense of taste and recognizes that different UIs are appropriate in different places. If Apple made shoes, they'd have both Italian loafers and tech sandals. If Ubuntu made shoes, they'd offer only the Air Wingtip line.
Ask an RIAA lawyer.
A synonym for "loophole" is "legal". The law said "if this, then that", and someone decided to meet the predicate so that they could use the result. Blame the politicians for not clearly specifying their intent, not the people who obeyed the law as it was written.
I'm not personally invested in the legal systems of those countries, and American law is both the subject and hand and the subject I'm commenting on. I would much rather err on the side of making a police agency's job harder than on making it easier to trick or coerce a citizen into implicating themselves.
I have friends and family who work in law enforcement agencies in various capacities. I am in no reasonable way "anti police". Not in the slightest. I've never personally had problems with getting blamed for something I didn't do, nor have any of my friends ever told me stories about it happening to them. But despite all that, I'm not saying a word to a policeman in any official capacity without my lawyer being present. As others have said, I'm not looking out for the best interests of society; if push comes to shove, I'm exercising whatever rights I can to stay out of trouble. I would expect you and everyone else to do the same, and as a bonus, I think that pattern of behavior as a whole is better for society.
Which society do you want to live in:
a. One where police can compel anyone to give testimony about themselves so that all crimes are solved by someone confessing to them, or
b. One where innocent people have the right to STFU and the state is required to actually do police work, interview witnesses, gather evidence, and otherwise build a case against suspects?
The only way you can be opposed to the 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself is to be completely ignorant of history and utterly devoid of imagination. Frankly, there wasn't a single argument above that wasn't utter bullshit, a troll, or the ramblings of someone who wanted to take a contrary stance just for the sake of being contrary.
Sounds like swarm of bees coming for your soul. Yep.
That's an interesting topic of conversation, but how could you possibly enforce it? Suppose I sue you. We go to lunch, sit down, and hash out our differences: "Tell you what, fredprado. Let's just end this. If you promise not to build that fence and quit yelling at my kid for walking down the sidewalk, I'll drop the suit. Can we make a gentleman's agreement?" We shake hands, go our separate ways, and both follow through on the agreement.
First, how would you craft a law enforcing that our private negotiations have to be part of the permanent record? Second, how would you square that with our 1st amendment right to publish (or not publish) the terms of our agreements?
How is a company using the government to coerce other companies to obey some nebulous (and dubious) "intellectual property" rights even remotely capitalist? Fascist, maybe, but not capitalist.
Any culture that advocates treating women as barely-human property sucks and deserves no respect.
Start looking at the folks, say two standard deviations from the mean.
Please don't. That turns into stack ranking, and we see how that worked out for Microsoft etc. There will always be a top 5% of prescribers, by definition. If all of them stop prescribing, there will be a new top 5%. Once the DEA starts looking at those practices - most of which will have legitimate excuses, like "we're a pain clinic" or "we see lots of terminal cancer patients" - it will badger the living shit out of those physicians until they want to get out of the business.
If I'm ever dying of abdominal cancer, I don't want my doctor to be afraid to give me heroic doses of oxycontin just because he doesn't want to skew his numbers. I don't want the DEA involved with that decision.
The developers of GNOME seem to have some awful kind of Mac envy.
...and an utter lack of understanding of why people like using Macs. They seem to conflate "simple because we devoted lots of research into making a streamlined interface that handles 99% of common use cases" with "simple because we removed everything else".
And for power users, fingerprint plus passcode is more secure than just one or the other. I'd love to see a setting like "require both fingerprint and passcode to initially unlock the phone. Lock the phone immediately when it goes to sleep, but allow it to be unlocked with either passcode or fingerprint for up to five minutes."
I'd set this in a heartbeat. Basically, it'd be more secure than any current options when initially unlocking the phone. It'd also be more convenient than the "require a passcode immediately when the phone goes to sleep" setting, and more secure than the "don't require a password for the next x minutes" settings. This is how I'd like the system to work.
WTF are you talking about?
Why do you need to have child identification kits in the first place.
Because it costs like $1 worth of materials, but would be incredibly valuable if a one-in-a-million Something Bad happens.
Not to dispute your paranoid premise, but... I've personally helped out with a "Child Identification Program" activity where we made videos of kids, took some standardized pictures, took fingerprints (using paper and ink, not digital scanners), and collected a cheek swab DNA sample. When we were done, every single shred of data we collected was gathered up and given to the parents for safekeeping. We had neither the interest nor the capability of storing "backups". Please don't talk parents out of making identification kits of their kids.
These people are not simply embracing it, but doing so for their own personal reasons i.e. Be first on the block to have one (which is a damn silly thing to do with a considerable investment, which most iPhones are.)
I'd probably be standing in line just for the fun of it if my phone were due for an upgrade anyway. I certainly wouldn't be afraid of buying an Apple iProduct.0, given their reputation for handling customer issues without hassle. If you buy an iPhone 5S tomorrow, it's about as safe a bet as you can get in the tech industry that Apple will take care of any problems you have with it.
Yeah, standing in line to buy a mass-produced consumer item is silly on the face of it. But if you were going to get one anyway, and you can be part of some launch-day fun (and maybe even get one for free just for being near the front of the line), why not? A lot of people camp out to see movies at their opening even when they could see the same film more easily the next day.
You're certifiably nuts. Best of luck with that.
This never happened. I'm sure it sounded tough when you were running through it in your mind, though.
Also they may get a generation used to using Surface when they wouldn't have purchased one.
What did those poor kids do to deserve that?