Nope. While you, clearly not understanding science, may not believe it, scientists hold it a virtue to give up positions when they are disproven.
Ah, naiveté.
Seriously, scientists are just as human as the rest of us... and if you think for one moment that they all are eager to watch their professional reputations (and thus careers) go down the toilet just like that?
Bah, they'll just wrap the content in JavaScript. Wanna use NoScript? Fine, then you don't get to access the content.
Works for me.
No, really, it does - for the websites that I absolutely have to access no matter what, I've already whitelisted them. For everything else, I couldn't care less.
So far, those sites which spew the most adverts (minus the blockers) are the ones I really don't give a damn about.
If I connect, no problem, and I will determine how much of my attention that I give to their ads by whitelisting (if the site is IMHO worthy enough to go back to more than a couple of times, I whitelist them and help them out a bit, unless the ads are uber-intrusive.)
If I don't connect, no problem, I'll go somewhere else and likely not even bother revisiting except by accident.
Nice compromise, but seating space is already at cattle-car tightness now. I can only imagine what it would squeeze everyone down to if you had to accommodate a frickin' room with soundproofing.
Personally, and as a guy who travels on business a lot, I MUCH prefer that cell phone usage remain banned (data usage okay, but no cell usage).
Why? Two reasons:
1) people are annoying enough - imagine 100-200 of them in a tiny cabin practically yelling into their cell phones.
2) I love not having to answer emails or phone calls while in-flight.
You'd be surprised how many people actually think stereotypes are accurate representations of populations as a whole.
Exhibit The First? The summary up top there:
'it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.'
Lots of hot-button words in there to stoke the fires of internal prejudice (leading to the aforementioned stereotyping), yes?
Personally, I find it hilarious in a way.
As a Catholic, I have zero problems with the theory of evolution, and find it consistent not only with logic and science, but with my own theological understandings. Funny enough, the Vatican has zero problems with it either.
But wait - it gets better. I do think church and state should remain completely separate entities, with one caveat: that the state at least recognize that 'church' (in the generic Judeo-Christian sense) played a highly important role in the creation and development of the 'state' (nope - that's not a troll: see also the reason why the words "Laus Deo" are carved into the very tip of the Washington Monument, among numerous other examples).
That said, every time this subject comes up, there's always this flood of smugness, almost as if it were manipulated into being; the fact that the summary is filled with hot-button words seems to prove me correct on this theory more and more... Mind you, this applies to both extremes of the debate, and there are no angels here. I was just hoping that this site, of all places, the verbiage could at least be made not-so-inflammatory (unless we're talking about patent trolls or Microsoft - then savage them at will, because they kinda deserve it. Okay okay - just kidding...)
TBH, with few exceptions they've so far done a fairly decent job of it (no, really!), but if I want political fires stoked, I can get that on the MSNBC or FOX websites.
As someone who used to work on Heads-Up Displays, I can tell you that there is a vast difference between the two.
First off, aircraft don't follow each other in the sky at distances of around 3 airplane-lengths apart. They also aren't confined to just two dimensions. Outside of ATC control zones, they don't have speed limits. Pilots in aircraft with HUDs are highly-trained (think very-high-end commercial jets, fighter jets, etc.) The HUD is specifically built and engineered to assist the pilot, and nothing else. Finally, unless it's a fighter jet, the HUD doesn't swallow the entire pilot's field-of-view. HUD gear is certified by the FAA before use on a given model/type of aircraft.
Notice that Google Glass on some douchebag's face while driving his/her car is the polar fucking opposite of all these things.:/
With that defense, yeah - a total douche. She isn't "defending the future", she's trying to dodge the speeding ticket, with a twist that she was caught what the state of California (IMHO rightly) defines as a monitor. They didn't say it was a "television", and neither does the citation.
Sorry, ma'am, but even if you manage to get the law itself changed, you're still guilty of violating it.
CIA has grown into a monster, so I'm gonna disband it. Then Kennedy is assassinated and nothing happens to the CIA.
2014: Obama says NSA has grown into a monster, it needs to be disbanded. Then Obama is assassinated and nothing happens to NSA.
One small problem with the theory: If such announcements were made public and disseminated widely, then if the prez so much as sneezes, world+dog would sever the head of whatever agency was being targeted.
Well, it depends on the results. I've never used the app*, but...
If the result is that you get to share in the user's freebie downloads and coupons, then it's Starbucks' problem, and they can eat the results for all I care.
If the result is a compromise of the user's CC info, then yeah, Starbucks needs to not only eat that cost, but forced to eat any associated costs that the ID theft brings about, and then compensate every user generously for his/her time and trouble.
I guess what I'm getting at is this - if the app stores nothing critical to the user (financial info, etc), then fuggit - that's the app maker's problem, and security is not a big deal. But, if the app stores something critical to the user (privacy/HIPAA info, financial info, etc), then the utmost care should be enforced.
* On the personal/user side, this should teach some good lessons as well: 1) I don't have a phone/tablet full of frivolous, stupid-assed apps. Maybe folks will figure this out too? 2) I don't store my financial info on the damned things either. 3) I live in Portland - why the hell would I bother with some corporate chain's coffee when there's way better to be had locally? Maybe it's time people stopped being such sheep about it and seek out the local alternatives if they can be had?
If you post a unique picture to, say, Instagram, then there's not going to be anything to compare against, especially if you're using something non-obvious and intelligent. If you post a unique Excel document with lots of formulas/macros in it, then that's obviously going to bork-up any attempt at finding steganography by way of algorithm. Even in your example of MS Word? one custom font, embedded picture/graph, macro and suchlike will happily help your document evade detection if the encryption lives within the image data.
That said, there are certainly means of testing against it by taking an image and meticulously deconstructing the thing, but that takes processing power and time (even if that time is measured in microseconds, it's still time, especially when you factor in download, data storage, IOPS, weeding out mis-named file extensions, etc - multiplied by the # of files processed.)
Also, I noticed something in your post - you mention posting something on a regular basis. Err, why bother using the same images over and over again? Upload each image/message once, and if it's pr0n (say you sketch the stuff and then photograph it, or make some unique screenshot and pass that around), your recipient would be only one of a mass of people downloading the thing.
While not perfect, such activity can be mitigated. TruCrypt can be written to automatically unmount the 'drive' as the computer goes to sleep/hibernate/etc, and could even be written to plop the keys into a random section of RAM each time it re-connects. Hell, you could even rig an option to unmount the drive when the screensaver comes on.
That would only leave the ability to access it when the computer is active - but then it's pretty much game-over in that situation anyway.
Meanwhile, if a parent is idiot enough to let their toddler play with a somewhat-fragile glass-faced $500+ electronic device?
You mean like a TV? And - toddler? There's a stage or two between toddler and adult that you seem to be unaware of...
A TV is substantially larger, heavier, and sturdier than an iPad, let alone an iPhone/iPod Touch. Curiously enough, if we were just talking iPads, the television is often cheaper to replace.
Curiously enough, the nanosecond a kid tries to pick up the television, most parents are smart enough to put a stop to it.
She keeps slamming toys into the screen, but she's not strong enough to break it. Yet.
You need money in your iTunes account to download a free app.
1) They changed this behavior at least since 2010 - you don't even need a card (of any type) to open an account nowadays. 2) App Store and iTunes are two different entities. 3) If the kid is younger than 13 or so, why the hell did you not control the password? 4) FYI: kids at that age lie. A lot.
Well, there's also going into the App Store after your kid hands back the device and seeing if there are any new purchases - they show up pretty easily under "purchased". Not 100% certain about the in-app purchases, but since it does not require a credit card to get an AppStore account...
Meanwhile, if a parent is idiot enough to let their toddler play with a somewhat-fragile glass-faced $500+ electronic device? The parent(s) deserve the consequences, and should count themselves lucky that little Junior didn't slam it into the floor until the screen shattered.
Good news is, you'll only do without until release/launch/upgdate dates start slipping, and/or the outages start piling up - then they pay attention.;)
Slashdot Mirror
*ahem*... nobody disputes that climate change is occurring - it does that all the time (for sufficiently large values of "time").
The big arguments revolve around the rate of change and the cause of it.
Nope. While you, clearly not understanding science, may not believe it, scientists hold it a virtue to give up positions when they are disproven.
Ah, naiveté.
Seriously, scientists are just as human as the rest of us... and if you think for one moment that they all are eager to watch their professional reputations (and thus careers) go down the toilet just like that?
Sheyah, right.
Beat that, suckers.
TigerDirect does. And I hate them for it. (Example link to a TV.)
Chrome + AdBlockPlus + DoNotTrackMe = no outside advertisements.
Not sure what you're referring to...
Slashdot already makes distinction between content elements and advertorial elements impossible.
True, but you do bring up a good point... those of us who have been on the site in, like forever, get a neat little checkbox to disable ads.
Damnit - do NOT invoke that bastard!
They could just make basic site navigation use javascript, click this button to load foo page.
I've seen those - I usually just leave at that point.
More often than not, the site owner needs you there more than you need to be at the site.
Bah, they'll just wrap the content in JavaScript. Wanna use NoScript? Fine, then you don't get to access the content.
Works for me.
No, really, it does - for the websites that I absolutely have to access no matter what, I've already whitelisted them. For everything else, I couldn't care less.
So far, those sites which spew the most adverts (minus the blockers) are the ones I really don't give a damn about.
If I connect, no problem, and I will determine how much of my attention that I give to their ads by whitelisting (if the site is IMHO worthy enough to go back to more than a couple of times, I whitelist them and help them out a bit, unless the ads are uber-intrusive.)
If I don't connect, no problem, I'll go somewhere else and likely not even bother revisiting except by accident.
EVERY spying initiative people are complaining about recently was put into effect when G.W. Bush was President.
Certainly, and they were compounded/expanded by his replacement (in spite of promises otherwise.)
When is California going to recall her?
Given her uber-wealthy backers and the overall ideological tilt of California?
They'll likely keep sending her embalmed corpse back to DC each term for approximately the next 600 years or so.
Nice compromise, but seating space is already at cattle-car tightness now. I can only imagine what it would squeeze everyone down to if you had to accommodate a frickin' room with soundproofing.
Personally, and as a guy who travels on business a lot, I MUCH prefer that cell phone usage remain banned (data usage okay, but no cell usage).
Why? Two reasons:
1) people are annoying enough - imagine 100-200 of them in a tiny cabin practically yelling into their cell phones.
2) I love not having to answer emails or phone calls while in-flight.
You'd be surprised how many people actually think stereotypes are accurate representations of populations as a whole.
Exhibit The First? The summary up top there:
'it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.'
Lots of hot-button words in there to stoke the fires of internal prejudice (leading to the aforementioned stereotyping), yes?
Personally, I find it hilarious in a way.
As a Catholic, I have zero problems with the theory of evolution, and find it consistent not only with logic and science, but with my own theological understandings. Funny enough, the Vatican has zero problems with it either.
But wait - it gets better. I do think church and state should remain completely separate entities, with one caveat: that the state at least recognize that 'church' (in the generic Judeo-Christian sense) played a highly important role in the creation and development of the 'state' (nope - that's not a troll: see also the reason why the words "Laus Deo" are carved into the very tip of the Washington Monument, among numerous other examples).
That said, every time this subject comes up, there's always this flood of smugness, almost as if it were manipulated into being; the fact that the summary is filled with hot-button words seems to prove me correct on this theory more and more... Mind you, this applies to both extremes of the debate, and there are no angels here. I was just hoping that this site, of all places, the verbiage could at least be made not-so-inflammatory (unless we're talking about patent trolls or Microsoft - then savage them at will, because they kinda deserve it. Okay okay - just kidding...)
TBH, with few exceptions they've so far done a fairly decent job of it (no, really!), but if I want political fires stoked, I can get that on the MSNBC or FOX websites.
(yep - prolly gonna get modded down, but meh.)
So a legal GPS is an illegal monitor as well?
Depends on the law in question, but I suspect it's part of why most GPS units have voice directions in addition to the map.
As someone who used to work on Heads-Up Displays, I can tell you that there is a vast difference between the two.
First off, aircraft don't follow each other in the sky at distances of around 3 airplane-lengths apart. They also aren't confined to just two dimensions. Outside of ATC control zones, they don't have speed limits. Pilots in aircraft with HUDs are highly-trained (think very-high-end commercial jets, fighter jets, etc.) The HUD is specifically built and engineered to assist the pilot, and nothing else. Finally, unless it's a fighter jet, the HUD doesn't swallow the entire pilot's field-of-view. HUD gear is certified by the FAA before use on a given model/type of aircraft.
Notice that Google Glass on some douchebag's face while driving his/her car is the polar fucking opposite of all these things. :/
With that defense, yeah - a total douche. She isn't "defending the future", she's trying to dodge the speeding ticket, with a twist that she was caught what the state of California (IMHO rightly) defines as a monitor. They didn't say it was a "television", and neither does the citation.
Sorry, ma'am, but even if you manage to get the law itself changed, you're still guilty of violating it.
CIA has grown into a monster, so I'm gonna disband it. Then Kennedy is assassinated and nothing happens to the CIA.
2014: Obama says NSA has grown into a monster, it needs to be disbanded. Then Obama is assassinated and nothing happens to NSA.
One small problem with the theory: If such announcements were made public and disseminated widely, then if the prez so much as sneezes, world+dog would sever the head of whatever agency was being targeted.
S/N ratio prolly sucks, though they could weed out most of it.
Otherwise they'd be drowning in spam texts and "I wuv you too!" texts.
Well, it depends on the results. I've never used the app*, but...
If the result is that you get to share in the user's freebie downloads and coupons, then it's Starbucks' problem, and they can eat the results for all I care.
If the result is a compromise of the user's CC info, then yeah, Starbucks needs to not only eat that cost, but forced to eat any associated costs that the ID theft brings about, and then compensate every user generously for his/her time and trouble.
I guess what I'm getting at is this - if the app stores nothing critical to the user (financial info, etc), then fuggit - that's the app maker's problem, and security is not a big deal. But, if the app stores something critical to the user (privacy/HIPAA info, financial info, etc), then the utmost care should be enforced.
* On the personal/user side, this should teach some good lessons as well:
1) I don't have a phone/tablet full of frivolous, stupid-assed apps. Maybe folks will figure this out too?
2) I don't store my financial info on the damned things either.
3) I live in Portland - why the hell would I bother with some corporate chain's coffee when there's way better to be had locally? Maybe it's time people stopped being such sheep about it and seek out the local alternatives if they can be had?
*ahem* - apparently this little project costs the end-user $0.00 to acquire.
Not seeing much profit going on with this one...
...what sibling said.
If you post a unique picture to, say, Instagram, then there's not going to be anything to compare against, especially if you're using something non-obvious and intelligent. If you post a unique Excel document with lots of formulas/macros in it, then that's obviously going to bork-up any attempt at finding steganography by way of algorithm. Even in your example of MS Word? one custom font, embedded picture/graph, macro and suchlike will happily help your document evade detection if the encryption lives within the image data.
That said, there are certainly means of testing against it by taking an image and meticulously deconstructing the thing, but that takes processing power and time (even if that time is measured in microseconds, it's still time, especially when you factor in download, data storage, IOPS, weeding out mis-named file extensions, etc - multiplied by the # of files processed.)
Also, I noticed something in your post - you mention posting something on a regular basis. Err, why bother using the same images over and over again? Upload each image/message once, and if it's pr0n (say you sketch the stuff and then photograph it, or make some unique screenshot and pass that around), your recipient would be only one of a mass of people downloading the thing.
...so grab the thing via BitTorrent at the nearest McDonald's WiFi and be done with it.
(...geez - do I have to think of *everything*? ;) )
While not perfect, such activity can be mitigated. TruCrypt can be written to automatically unmount the 'drive' as the computer goes to sleep/hibernate/etc, and could even be written to plop the keys into a random section of RAM each time it re-connects. Hell, you could even rig an option to unmount the drive when the screensaver comes on.
That would only leave the ability to access it when the computer is active - but then it's pretty much game-over in that situation anyway.
Meanwhile, if a parent is idiot enough to let their toddler play with a somewhat-fragile glass-faced $500+ electronic device?
You mean like a TV? And - toddler? There's a stage or two between toddler and adult that you seem to be unaware of...
A TV is substantially larger, heavier, and sturdier than an iPad, let alone an iPhone/iPod Touch. Curiously enough, if we were just talking iPads, the television is often cheaper to replace.
Curiously enough, the nanosecond a kid tries to pick up the television, most parents are smart enough to put a stop to it.
She keeps slamming toys into the screen, but she's not strong enough to break it. Yet.
Time to step up and do that parenting thing, no?
You need money in your iTunes account to download a free app.
1) They changed this behavior at least since 2010 - you don't even need a card (of any type) to open an account nowadays.
2) App Store and iTunes are two different entities.
3) If the kid is younger than 13 or so, why the hell did you not control the password?
4) FYI: kids at that age lie. A lot.
Well, there's also going into the App Store after your kid hands back the device and seeing if there are any new purchases - they show up pretty easily under "purchased". Not 100% certain about the in-app purchases, but since it does not require a credit card to get an AppStore account...
Meanwhile, if a parent is idiot enough to let their toddler play with a somewhat-fragile glass-faced $500+ electronic device? The parent(s) deserve the consequences, and should count themselves lucky that little Junior didn't slam it into the floor until the screen shattered.
Good news is, you'll only do without until release/launch/upgdate dates start slipping, and/or the outages start piling up - then they pay attention. ;)