I'm not sure the results are even that valid. How do you tell the difference between a less depressed mouse struggling and a mouse driven into a rage by having it's brain laser baked whilst being dangled by the tail? I guess we'll just have to stimulate a sad memory and see if those mice just hang there without the will to live.
We already have Lifeline, which is "...telephone service for eligible low-income subscribers to help ensure they can connect to the nation's communications networks, find jobs, access health care services, connect with family and their children's schools, and call for help in an emergency." - according to the FCC. If that is the goal of the program, then basic internet service actually contributes to that. I'd rather people just went to the library to get access where possible, but there are areas that don't have a good public resource. I'm not really convinced individual service to the home is always the best approach, but I doubt any agency is going to bother to administer anything more complex to provide more community access.
There isn't any point in reducing carry on size. The allowed size is already very small and it isn't currently enforced because at least 10% of passengers are commonly carrying over-sized carry-on. Never make a new stricter rule, if you aren't enforcing the current one.
I was watching the inquiries on CSPAN. My thoughts exactly were, "do we even know encryption would have solved the issue?". You have this legislator (didn't catch his name) up in front everyone lambasting OPM Director Katherine Archuleta and demanding to know why the data was not encrypted. As if the guy has a clue about what is involved and what problems it would solve directly. Exactly as mentioned in the article since the system has to be able to decrypt it's own data in order to function all you have to do is compromise the system and you get the data. I'm not defending outdated, piss poor public sector security practices, but it's just pretty lame to grandstand and pretend all the solutions are so obvious and that encrypting all your data for the last 30 years is as simple as deciding it should be done. It's particularly obnoxious when the criticism comes from a clueless legislator, who doesn't know anything about network security and is just engaging in a self serving attempt to seem tough on the issue.
I'm confused by the whole scenario. Snowden took documents and released them through the media. The media contacts filtered the data and released data that wasn't overtly harmful for National security. Where did foreign governments ever get the opportunity to access encrypted files with unknown contents?
I too withhold judgement based on U.S. incentives to vilify Snowden.
Well yeah, didn't you hear this sort of thing can increase profit, PROFIT!!!, you would stand in the way of profit, because is that would just be un-American. If you don't want to be tracked and identified every step you take online and off, you must have something to hide. It's only so they can improve your shopping experience and help you stay connected to your friends. It's a win-win all around. It could also help us track criminals and terrorists, so just think of the children./Sarcasm. God damn these fucking fuckers. The problem with a digital cage is that it's much harder to tell when exactly you've been placed inside it, let alone when the door is about to slam shut.
The millennials doing recruiting now days don't even know Dice ever existed, they must be hurting. Then again their shitty clickbait articles force my sympathy filter to off.
In addition we need to limit the overly broad interpretation of the Smith case and third party doctrine as applied to customer relationships with corporate service providers.
We have protections from general warrants. The unconstitutionality isn't cited as it my own opinion based on my belief that it should be covered by a combination of the 4th and 9th amendments.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth amendment text.
What needs updating in my mind is HIPAA, to expand what we consider medical information and better limit the use of that information and also update The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and possibly Federal Wiretap Act of 1968.
I would imagine that they mean people wouldn't go out of their way to avoid spying if they weren't aware it existed. An ignorant population is like and animal with no natural predators, lacking the typical instincts required for self preservation.
Bitteroak actually nailed this one. It's an issue with Netflix's rights to export the content in that, in many cases they don't have the rights. Thus it is infringement on the part of the customer since the behavior is forbidden in Netflix terms of service. Maybe people wouldn't feel the need to break the rules if rights-holders didn't set themselves up to be in opposition of an open global market.
Yes the spying is still happening and it's the worst of it that the legislature has yet to address. Yeah, phone meta data collection is bad and unconstitutional, but the data collection from internet activity is worse. It's about a whole lot more than phone calls. Privacy laws related to electronic communications and data storage need to be updated to protect citizens rights from mass surveillance, heavy handed dishonest law enforcement tactics and corporate intrusion into our private lives.
If they are using someone else's account it's potentially theft of services of the U.S. company Netflix. If they are paying for the service on their own account then where is the problem?
My only issue with Yahoo mail is the number of permissions the current Mobile app version wants. If I ever switch phones the Yahoo app goes way, I will not give them more permissions. I already ditched the Yahoo Finance app for privacy reasons. That I can live without since Yahoo Finance now sucks and isn't likely to return. Really Porter Stansbury and his end of the world predictions on the front page of Yahoo finance, meh, get off my lawn*.
*Due to drought conditions visitors will now have to get of my dirt patch.
I'd add a couple: 11. Stay away from recurring financial obligations like big car payments, $120 per month cable bills, etc...
12. Don't blow all your money when you get divorced and have a mid life crisis freak out. If you are ever fortunate enough to build wealth in good times, it doesn't mean it will be easy to do it again.
How about having windows so if your autonomous car stops due to a stalled car ahead you don't just sit there for 30 minutes wondering why traffic is at a standstill. This mythical future where drivers will have no need to pay attention to anything, ever, is idiotic. Sure we'd all rather be able to take a nap, watch television, eat pizza, drink beer and masturbate, but that is not going to be part of responsible vehicle operation in the next 30 years.
The primary issue as I see it with IoT is the lack of a good security model that ordinary people can reference. You wouldn't stick an unmanaged Windows desktop out on the internet, expose a service and expect it not to be vulnerable. Why would we treat an inexpensive gadget any different? Security happens in layers, so if the device is going to be out on the internet then it needs a firewall protecting it, it needs some intelligent filtering so private data doesn't leak out (even to the device vendor) and malicious exploit attempts don't get in, it needs to know how to allow only your devices like your phone inbound and not just anyone on the internet. It needs a serious password and it needs encryption where appropriate. I'm not sure what products exist at a reasonable cost in the market today that are up to the task. The products at a reasonable cost that don't take high level network expertise may not exist at this point. Another concern that will come out of the lack of a good security model is that many services may not go from your phone or laptop to the device directly, they may place the service provider in between, in which case it becomes very hard to allow only authorized users to attempt to connect and to treat the provider or vendor as an untrusted entity. In short, allowing the IoT device itself to be solely responsible for it's own security is a flawed model that will be certain to fail time and time again.
Slashdot Mirror
Landfills are free to the manufacturer, they aren't the ones dealing with disposal.
I'm not sure the results are even that valid. How do you tell the difference between a less depressed mouse struggling and a mouse driven into a rage by having it's brain laser baked whilst being dangled by the tail? I guess we'll just have to stimulate a sad memory and see if those mice just hang there without the will to live.
We already have Lifeline, which is "...telephone service for eligible low-income subscribers to help ensure they can connect to the nation's communications networks, find jobs, access health care services, connect with family and their children's schools, and call for help in an emergency." - according to the FCC. If that is the goal of the program, then basic internet service actually contributes to that. I'd rather people just went to the library to get access where possible, but there are areas that don't have a good public resource. I'm not really convinced individual service to the home is always the best approach, but I doubt any agency is going to bother to administer anything more complex to provide more community access.
There isn't any point in reducing carry on size. The allowed size is already very small and it isn't currently enforced because at least 10% of passengers are commonly carrying over-sized carry-on. Never make a new stricter rule, if you aren't enforcing the current one.
I for one despise this undisclosed location.
I was watching the inquiries on CSPAN. My thoughts exactly were, "do we even know encryption would have solved the issue?". You have this legislator (didn't catch his name) up in front everyone lambasting OPM Director Katherine Archuleta and demanding to know why the data was not encrypted. As if the guy has a clue about what is involved and what problems it would solve directly. Exactly as mentioned in the article since the system has to be able to decrypt it's own data in order to function all you have to do is compromise the system and you get the data. I'm not defending outdated, piss poor public sector security practices, but it's just pretty lame to grandstand and pretend all the solutions are so obvious and that encrypting all your data for the last 30 years is as simple as deciding it should be done. It's particularly obnoxious when the criticism comes from a clueless legislator, who doesn't know anything about network security and is just engaging in a self serving attempt to seem tough on the issue.
I'm confused by the whole scenario. Snowden took documents and released them through the media. The media contacts filtered the data and released data that wasn't overtly harmful for National security. Where did foreign governments ever get the opportunity to access encrypted files with unknown contents?
I too withhold judgement based on U.S. incentives to vilify Snowden.
I would not be able to resist the temptation to include an Easter egg in the design, like perhaps a 3D printed rat hidden somewhere in the structure.
Well yeah, didn't you hear this sort of thing can increase profit, PROFIT!!!, you would stand in the way of profit, because is that would just be un-American. If you don't want to be tracked and identified every step you take online and off, you must have something to hide. It's only so they can improve your shopping experience and help you stay connected to your friends. It's a win-win all around. It could also help us track criminals and terrorists, so just think of the children. /Sarcasm. God damn these fucking fuckers. The problem with a digital cage is that it's much harder to tell when exactly you've been placed inside it, let alone when the door is about to slam shut.
The millennials doing recruiting now days don't even know Dice ever existed, they must be hurting. Then again their shitty clickbait articles force my sympathy filter to off.
We can just script replacement of all ad images with amusing pictures of kittens, or porn, whichever is more soothing to the viewer.
In addition we need to limit the overly broad interpretation of the Smith case and third party doctrine as applied to customer relationships with corporate service providers.
We have protections from general warrants. The unconstitutionality isn't cited as it my own opinion based on my belief that it should be covered by a combination of the 4th and 9th amendments.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth amendment text.
What needs updating in my mind is HIPAA, to expand what we consider medical information and better limit the use of that information and also update The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and possibly Federal Wiretap Act of 1968.
I would imagine that they mean people wouldn't go out of their way to avoid spying if they weren't aware it existed. An ignorant population is like and animal with no natural predators, lacking the typical instincts required for self preservation.
Bitteroak actually nailed this one. It's an issue with Netflix's rights to export the content in that, in many cases they don't have the rights. Thus it is infringement on the part of the customer since the behavior is forbidden in Netflix terms of service. Maybe people wouldn't feel the need to break the rules if rights-holders didn't set themselves up to be in opposition of an open global market.
Yes the spying is still happening and it's the worst of it that the legislature has yet to address. Yeah, phone meta data collection is bad and unconstitutional, but the data collection from internet activity is worse. It's about a whole lot more than phone calls. Privacy laws related to electronic communications and data storage need to be updated to protect citizens rights from mass surveillance, heavy handed dishonest law enforcement tactics and corporate intrusion into our private lives.
And a new definition of photo-bombing a selfie.
If they are using someone else's account it's potentially theft of services of the U.S. company Netflix. If they are paying for the service on their own account then where is the problem?
My only issue with Yahoo mail is the number of permissions the current Mobile app version wants. If I ever switch phones the Yahoo app goes way, I will not give them more permissions. I already ditched the Yahoo Finance app for privacy reasons. That I can live without since Yahoo Finance now sucks and isn't likely to return. Really Porter Stansbury and his end of the world predictions on the front page of Yahoo finance, meh, get off my lawn*.
*Due to drought conditions visitors will now have to get of my dirt patch.
If they ban it then the real bad guys will just use double secret cryptography.
I'd add a couple:
11. Stay away from recurring financial obligations like big car payments, $120 per month cable bills, etc...
12. Don't blow all your money when you get divorced and have a mid life crisis freak out. If you are ever fortunate enough to build wealth in good times, it doesn't mean it will be easy to do it again.
Bender, is that you?
Yeah, I don't agree with the ticking time bomb insinuation, that's a little dramatic compared with reality.
How about having windows so if your autonomous car stops due to a stalled car ahead you don't just sit there for 30 minutes wondering why traffic is at a standstill. This mythical future where drivers will have no need to pay attention to anything, ever, is idiotic. Sure we'd all rather be able to take a nap, watch television, eat pizza, drink beer and masturbate, but that is not going to be part of responsible vehicle operation in the next 30 years.
The primary issue as I see it with IoT is the lack of a good security model that ordinary people can reference. You wouldn't stick an unmanaged Windows desktop out on the internet, expose a service and expect it not to be vulnerable. Why would we treat an inexpensive gadget any different? Security happens in layers, so if the device is going to be out on the internet then it needs a firewall protecting it, it needs some intelligent filtering so private data doesn't leak out (even to the device vendor) and malicious exploit attempts don't get in, it needs to know how to allow only your devices like your phone inbound and not just anyone on the internet. It needs a serious password and it needs encryption where appropriate. I'm not sure what products exist at a reasonable cost in the market today that are up to the task. The products at a reasonable cost that don't take high level network expertise may not exist at this point. Another concern that will come out of the lack of a good security model is that many services may not go from your phone or laptop to the device directly, they may place the service provider in between, in which case it becomes very hard to allow only authorized users to attempt to connect and to treat the provider or vendor as an untrusted entity. In short, allowing the IoT device itself to be solely responsible for it's own security is a flawed model that will be certain to fail time and time again.