Haha, so emotional! I was able to find four distinct stories on the first page of a simple Google search, so I'll assume that your hysteria is clouding your memory.
Honestly, the constant hum of righteous outrage is one of the reasons why I left the Northeast. I'll shut the fuck up now and let you get back to that...
Better yet, the whole family should get out of Texas and move to Cambridge MA.
If he moves that near to the hysterical overreaction capital of the US, he'd be lucky to live a year! That's where nearly half of the "bomb hoax" victims we've seen in Slashdot stories hailed from.
It's clever, but I wouldn't depend on that strategy unless it's your only choice. We're very close to the time when the courts rationalize away the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree.
In part because cars were more straightforward, but *mostly* because cars were so unreliable...
Cars back then actually weren't all that straightforward, which is a huge reason why they were so unreliable. Much of it is due to advances in materials, but electronic fuel management, spark advance, etc are much simpler and less fidgety designs that the mechanical kludges that used to be used. The physics behind a carburetor, for example, are fairly simple but keeping one well tuned has sent many the amateur mechanic over the edge!
The tools you need to work on new cars are different, but well within the reach of an interested amateur. Try poking through an old (pre-1980s) mechanic's toolbox if you want to see a crazy collection of inaccessible tools.
What you're describing is counter to the experiences of the hundreds of millions of people who regularly use GPS receivers inside buildings and in nearly enclosed metal boxes traveling at various rates of speed through extremely multi-path plagued environments.
You really need to look at fixing your specific setup because the problem is not that bad for anybody else. You likely have an extremely shitty GPS receiver, a poor power supply to the receiver, or crazy interference coming from something else on your quad. At the very least, smooth the output of the receiver before you use it.
GPS has issues, but they're not nearly as bad as you portray them.
I'm not presuming bad faith and I agree that it would be extremely risky to put a backdoor in this system. At the same time, there's no reason to trust Google and this extension doesn't align with their demonstrated motives, so your original comment doesn't really give any solace.
I'm also annoyed that this isn't a genuine attempt to make securely encrypted email mainstream, since mainstream use of encryption would limit Google's ability to harvest data and harm the core of their business. They can't make this system too easy to use (encrypt by default) or too many people will use it, so it's not targeted at "normal" people. It'd be pretty stupid of them to put a backdoor in such a system, but it'd be just as stupid to blindly trust them not to do so. Privacy-conscious people have just as much reason to distrust Google as any other third party, so who exactly is this targeted at?
Which should honestly make us wonder if these solutions are trustworthy. What do Google or Yahoo have to gain from cutting off their own access to their users' email contents? If they're willing to not scan their users' email, they could start by no longer scanning their users' email, today.
If you see this sign and the lane to the right of you is clear enough for people to pass you on the right, then you're not legally in the right by being in the left lane.
Quit bitching and whining about the dangerous behavior of others while you're actively breaking the law and needlessly adding to the hazard of the whole situation. Talk about "zero self awareness of your unaccommodating behavior".
I think the idea is that the actions average out to neutral. The character may do good or bad actions, but there is no particular bias toward good or bad. Just as a good or evil character may occasionally do bad or good actions, respectively, but they each have a consistent bias over the collection of all of their actions.
How did I insult you? I think that suppression of speech is unreasonable and will never give positive results. If your argument is one of censorship, then it is an stupid argument. But there's no need to take this debate so personally. I'm not angry at all; I'm laughing... it's funny that I have to defend free speech.
The best way to fight stupid ideas, like Nazism and censorship laws, is to argue with them. Using force in place of open debate, like both the Nazis and the modern German state does, so clearly doesn't get the desired results. Also, the fact that censorship is the law in Germany doesn't make it a valid position. I'm free to argue against your dumb laws and you're free to argue back... Or you can just act offended. I don't really care either way.:)
...NO ONE will sympatise with you. You won't be a martyr but osterised. And rightly so.
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, there is a population of actual neo-Nazis in Germany, responsible for all sorts of violence up to this day. Meanwhile, in countries where they can have their little marches and we can all attend to laugh at them, their numbers have dwindled to almost nothing.
You can keep attesting that suppressing speech gets positive results, but the facts don't seem to support your argument. In forums hosted in the US like Slashdot, we'll not outlaw your stupid authoritarian arguments, but we will laugh at them. No amount of capital letters in your arguments can force us to accept them.
This approach could go a long way to protecting some pretty heinous hypothetical government abuses. People could be disappeared and, as long as they didn't have family that could claim damages, the government could claim that nobody has standing to challenge the practice. This is a very dangerous line of reasoning.
...I don't know what's in that connection, as it's TLS.
Is the TLS certificate hardcoded, or will it accept certificates from another CA if you add them to the Windows CA store? Let's try to crack that sucker open...
Fortunately, as illustrated by the stats and interview listed above, the real world doesn't seem to operate like you imagine. Muggers don't point guns at people who may also have guns.
The point that you still can't seem to grasp is that the real-life mugger doesn't want to have to murder somebody for the money in their wallet. If pulling out a gun while mugging someone is likely to escalate into a kill or be killed situation, the mugger will leave the gun at home.
You speak as though you'd be pretty at ease with murdering people, but most people don't want to do that for various reasons. It sounds like you think that all criminals are cartoon or Hollywood villains.
This illustrates what I was originally saying about using the silly "good guy"/"bad guy" descriptors. A threaten-you-for-money-bad-guy isn't necessarily ok with killing people in cold blood. "Badness" is a continuum and attributing maximum badness to every "bad guy" is silly and shortsighted. Raising the risk involved in committing a mugging does seem to reduce the number of muggings instead of just increasing the number of murders.
I'm at a loss for why you can't seem to make this simple connection.
If you're a criminal who uses a gun to intimidate unarmed people into complying with your requests, but there is a good chance that the "good guy" also has a gun, you'd be a fool to point a gun at the good guy (leaving aside the fact that most petty criminals are pretty foolish to begin with). Why would you voluntarily put yourself in a position where you need to murder somebody or get shot in self defense?
I'm addressing what you said many levels up:
Sorry, that is just nonsense. In an area where "good guys" may legally carry a gun, every bad guy most certainly has a gun. So the bad guy is "brandishing" his weapon first, to get what he wants. If the good guy tries to pull his he gets shot.
No idea in what world you think you live that only the good guys have guns and the bad ones run away (*facepalm*)
In an area where "good guys" may carry a gun, carrying a gun as a bad guy who doesn't intend to use it greatly increases your chance of being shot. A mugger who doesn't want to engage in a shootout is not going to start murdering people because his victims carry guns. He's going to not brandish a gun and, when faced with armed opposition, run away and try to mug people without guns.
Why do you think that just because a person is willing to mug someone, he's also willing to murder someone?
Most people may not be willing to kill another person in cold blood, but shooting someone who is pointing a gun at you and threatening to murder you is quite a bit easier and not much of a moral dilemma.
Criminals who want to use a gun as an empty threat would be considerably less likely to point a gun at someone, not intending to actually murder that person, if there is a high probability of their victim shooting them in self defense.
I think that changes things quite a bit. How do you see it not changing anything at all?
So the bad guy is "brandishing" his weapon first, to get what he wants. If the good guy tries to pull his he gets shot.
This is a great example of how the simplistic "good guy"/"bad guy" labels make rational thought about a scenario difficult. A "bad guy" may be fine with waving around a gun in order to scare his victims into giving up their stuff, but may not be ok with murdering another person in the commission of a crime. Just because he's a "bad guy" doesn't mean there is no bad thing that he will not do, both for moral reasons (few people are alright with actually murdering another human in cold blood) and for practical reasons (a life of crime can be somewhat stifled by homicide detectives on your trail and crimes in your past that don't have statutes of limitation). The mugger may have no intention of actually shooting his victim with the gun, even if it is loaded or functional. Mugging to murder is a pretty big leap.
Most people get excited and snatch the trigger spraying bullets around and hitting everything except what they're aiming at.
While Marshall's claims are still a bit contentious, a counter to your single youtube data point would be the large number of conscripted soldiers in WWII and Vietnam who never fired their weapons even when faced with the enemy.
Hollywood movies and drunken bar brawls aside, it takes a lot of nerve to pull out a gun and start shooting at people. Training is of course essential to the proper and responsible use of guns, but a dearth of training isn't likely to lead to bullets flying everywhere.
You mean "client side encryption" conducted by closed source binaries delivered from their servers (and updated automatically)?
You don't seem to get the trust issues here. Having one company handle both the encryption and the data storage is folly. The whole "client side encryption" aspect may or may not be true, but since you can't verify it it amounts to nothing more than marketing.
Yes. If you don't want the topic coming back over and over again, you need provide an explanation for why you're closing the ticket. WONTFIX without an explanation is the equivalent to saying, "because I said so."
It's also lazy. Removing an expected feature because you didn't plan your product development well enough isn't acceptable. Set an appropriate milestone and fix the problem. Did you really not plan well enough to anticipate this being a problem?
Pretty much. The use of WONTFIX should be pretty rare and obviously justified at any reasonable person. If the bug in question is an actual bug, then WONTFIX without a pretty comprehensive technical justification is never the correct way to close it.
Because that's not how these gaps in coverage work. They aren't blanketing the country and filling in the gaps with the latest gen technology... They're just upgrading the previous gen installations, so that the biggest urban centers go from 2G->3G->4G->5G while the holes remain unfilled. There are vast areas of my state that are still only 2G and they're not just the unoccupied areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, so emotional! I was able to find four distinct stories on the first page of a simple Google search, so I'll assume that your hysteria is clouding your memory.
Honestly, the constant hum of righteous outrage is one of the reasons why I left the Northeast. I'll shut the fuck up now and let you get back to that...
Better yet, the whole family should get out of Texas and move to Cambridge MA.
If he moves that near to the hysterical overreaction capital of the US, he'd be lucky to live a year! That's where nearly half of the "bomb hoax" victims we've seen in Slashdot stories hailed from.
It's clever, but I wouldn't depend on that strategy unless it's your only choice. We're very close to the time when the courts rationalize away the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree.
In part because cars were more straightforward, but *mostly* because cars were so unreliable...
Cars back then actually weren't all that straightforward, which is a huge reason why they were so unreliable. Much of it is due to advances in materials, but electronic fuel management, spark advance, etc are much simpler and less fidgety designs that the mechanical kludges that used to be used. The physics behind a carburetor, for example, are fairly simple but keeping one well tuned has sent many the amateur mechanic over the edge!
The tools you need to work on new cars are different, but well within the reach of an interested amateur. Try poking through an old (pre-1980s) mechanic's toolbox if you want to see a crazy collection of inaccessible tools.
What you're describing is counter to the experiences of the hundreds of millions of people who regularly use GPS receivers inside buildings and in nearly enclosed metal boxes traveling at various rates of speed through extremely multi-path plagued environments.
You really need to look at fixing your specific setup because the problem is not that bad for anybody else. You likely have an extremely shitty GPS receiver, a poor power supply to the receiver, or crazy interference coming from something else on your quad. At the very least, smooth the output of the receiver before you use it.
GPS has issues, but they're not nearly as bad as you portray them.
Well, if it's a self healing zipper, which it likely is ... I can pop open the zipper, and close it back up and you will never know.
If the zipper is locked, you'll have a hard time re-zipping it. The point of the lock is to make surreptitious entry to the bag more difficult.
I'm not presuming bad faith and I agree that it would be extremely risky to put a backdoor in this system. At the same time, there's no reason to trust Google and this extension doesn't align with their demonstrated motives, so your original comment doesn't really give any solace.
I'm also annoyed that this isn't a genuine attempt to make securely encrypted email mainstream, since mainstream use of encryption would limit Google's ability to harvest data and harm the core of their business. They can't make this system too easy to use (encrypt by default) or too many people will use it, so it's not targeted at "normal" people. It'd be pretty stupid of them to put a backdoor in such a system, but it'd be just as stupid to blindly trust them not to do so. Privacy-conscious people have just as much reason to distrust Google as any other third party, so who exactly is this targeted at?
Which should honestly make us wonder if these solutions are trustworthy. What do Google or Yahoo have to gain from cutting off their own access to their users' email contents? If they're willing to not scan their users' email, they could start by no longer scanning their users' email, today.
There are many different ways for Google to subvert this system, being that it is an extension that runs in Google Chrome, stores the keys in Chrome, and will assumedly be provided and (silently) updated by Google. The OpenPGP spec itself allows for options like "--hidden-encrypt-to", so unwary users could still end up sharing all of their information with Google or whoever else.
TL;DR - Why should we trust Google or Yahoo here?
If you see this sign and the lane to the right of you is clear enough for people to pass you on the right, then you're not legally in the right by being in the left lane.
Quit bitching and whining about the dangerous behavior of others while you're actively breaking the law and needlessly adding to the hazard of the whole situation. Talk about "zero self awareness of your unaccommodating behavior".
I think the idea is that the actions average out to neutral. The character may do good or bad actions, but there is no particular bias toward good or bad. Just as a good or evil character may occasionally do bad or good actions, respectively, but they each have a consistent bias over the collection of all of their actions.
How did I insult you? I think that suppression of speech is unreasonable and will never give positive results. If your argument is one of censorship, then it is an stupid argument. But there's no need to take this debate so personally. I'm not angry at all; I'm laughing... it's funny that I have to defend free speech.
The best way to fight stupid ideas, like Nazism and censorship laws, is to argue with them. Using force in place of open debate, like both the Nazis and the modern German state does, so clearly doesn't get the desired results. Also, the fact that censorship is the law in Germany doesn't make it a valid position. I'm free to argue against your dumb laws and you're free to argue back... Or you can just act offended. I don't really care either way. :)
...NO ONE will sympatise with you. You won't be a martyr but osterised. And rightly so.
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, there is a population of actual neo-Nazis in Germany, responsible for all sorts of violence up to this day. Meanwhile, in countries where they can have their little marches and we can all attend to laugh at them, their numbers have dwindled to almost nothing.
You can keep attesting that suppressing speech gets positive results, but the facts don't seem to support your argument. In forums hosted in the US like Slashdot, we'll not outlaw your stupid authoritarian arguments, but we will laugh at them. No amount of capital letters in your arguments can force us to accept them.
This approach could go a long way to protecting some pretty heinous hypothetical government abuses. People could be disappeared and, as long as they didn't have family that could claim damages, the government could claim that nobody has standing to challenge the practice. This is a very dangerous line of reasoning.
...I don't know what's in that connection, as it's TLS.
Is the TLS certificate hardcoded, or will it accept certificates from another CA if you add them to the Windows CA store? Let's try to crack that sucker open...
You've described a "blind" study. "Double blind" means that the testers don't know which subject is in which group until after the study.
Fortunately, as illustrated by the stats and interview listed above, the real world doesn't seem to operate like you imagine. Muggers don't point guns at people who may also have guns.
The point that you still can't seem to grasp is that the real-life mugger doesn't want to have to murder somebody for the money in their wallet. If pulling out a gun while mugging someone is likely to escalate into a kill or be killed situation, the mugger will leave the gun at home.
You speak as though you'd be pretty at ease with murdering people, but most people don't want to do that for various reasons. It sounds like you think that all criminals are cartoon or Hollywood villains.
This illustrates what I was originally saying about using the silly "good guy"/"bad guy" descriptors. A threaten-you-for-money-bad-guy isn't necessarily ok with killing people in cold blood. "Badness" is a continuum and attributing maximum badness to every "bad guy" is silly and shortsighted. Raising the risk involved in committing a mugging does seem to reduce the number of muggings instead of just increasing the number of murders.
I'm at a loss for why you can't seem to make this simple connection.
If you're a criminal who uses a gun to intimidate unarmed people into complying with your requests, but there is a good chance that the "good guy" also has a gun, you'd be a fool to point a gun at the good guy (leaving aside the fact that most petty criminals are pretty foolish to begin with). Why would you voluntarily put yourself in a position where you need to murder somebody or get shot in self defense?
I'm addressing what you said many levels up:
Sorry, that is just nonsense.
In an area where "good guys" may legally carry a gun, every bad guy most certainly has a gun. So the bad guy is "brandishing" his weapon first, to get what he wants. If the good guy tries to pull his he gets shot.
No idea in what world you think you live that only the good guys have guns and the bad ones run away (*facepalm*)
In an area where "good guys" may carry a gun, carrying a gun as a bad guy who doesn't intend to use it greatly increases your chance of being shot. A mugger who doesn't want to engage in a shootout is not going to start murdering people because his victims carry guns. He's going to not brandish a gun and, when faced with armed opposition, run away and try to mug people without guns.
Why do you think that just because a person is willing to mug someone, he's also willing to murder someone?
Most people may not be willing to kill another person in cold blood, but shooting someone who is pointing a gun at you and threatening to murder you is quite a bit easier and not much of a moral dilemma.
Criminals who want to use a gun as an empty threat would be considerably less likely to point a gun at someone, not intending to actually murder that person, if there is a high probability of their victim shooting them in self defense.
I think that changes things quite a bit. How do you see it not changing anything at all?
So the bad guy is "brandishing" his weapon first, to get what he wants. If the good guy tries to pull his he gets shot.
This is a great example of how the simplistic "good guy"/"bad guy" labels make rational thought about a scenario difficult. A "bad guy" may be fine with waving around a gun in order to scare his victims into giving up their stuff, but may not be ok with murdering another person in the commission of a crime. Just because he's a "bad guy" doesn't mean there is no bad thing that he will not do, both for moral reasons (few people are alright with actually murdering another human in cold blood) and for practical reasons (a life of crime can be somewhat stifled by homicide detectives on your trail and crimes in your past that don't have statutes of limitation). The mugger may have no intention of actually shooting his victim with the gun, even if it is loaded or functional. Mugging to murder is a pretty big leap.
Most people get excited and snatch the trigger spraying bullets around and hitting everything except what they're aiming at.
While Marshall's claims are still a bit contentious, a counter to your single youtube data point would be the large number of conscripted soldiers in WWII and Vietnam who never fired their weapons even when faced with the enemy.
Hollywood movies and drunken bar brawls aside, it takes a lot of nerve to pull out a gun and start shooting at people. Training is of course essential to the proper and responsible use of guns, but a dearth of training isn't likely to lead to bullets flying everywhere.
You mean "client side encryption" conducted by closed source binaries delivered from their servers (and updated automatically)?
You don't seem to get the trust issues here. Having one company handle both the encryption and the data storage is folly. The whole "client side encryption" aspect may or may not be true, but since you can't verify it it amounts to nothing more than marketing.
Yes. If you don't want the topic coming back over and over again, you need provide an explanation for why you're closing the ticket. WONTFIX without an explanation is the equivalent to saying, "because I said so."
It's also lazy. Removing an expected feature because you didn't plan your product development well enough isn't acceptable. Set an appropriate milestone and fix the problem. Did you really not plan well enough to anticipate this being a problem?
Pretty much. The use of WONTFIX should be pretty rare and obviously justified at any reasonable person. If the bug in question is an actual bug, then WONTFIX without a pretty comprehensive technical justification is never the correct way to close it.
An alternative to this could be designing the OS in such a way that only very few updates require a reboot.
Because that's not how these gaps in coverage work. They aren't blanketing the country and filling in the gaps with the latest gen technology... They're just upgrading the previous gen installations, so that the biggest urban centers go from 2G->3G->4G->5G while the holes remain unfilled. There are vast areas of my state that are still only 2G and they're not just the unoccupied areas.