And although I will be going as a tourist, I still need to be able to regularly import large quantities of heroin and cocaine. However, this isn't allowed according to US law, so can anyone suggest how I can circumvent this law largely because I don't accept it and want to carry on with my massive heroin and cocaine habits while there...
Local laws, whether you believe they are right or not, follow them if you want to stay out of jail.
I don't advocate only doing half - I just understand that US laws don't apply to BongaBongaLand and the advertisers based there, so while breaking and entering, trespassing and burglary are all nicely illegal, a similar law won't matter one iota when someone can do all those things without ever coming into your legal jurisdiction. And while currently most advertisers are based in your jurisdiction, they can easily move out of it.
Its also interesting that you used examples of where someone comes into your private property, which doesn't relate at all to a browser voluntarily giving your information out - try something like walking down the road stark bollock naked and trying to claim that someone taking a photo of you is an invasion of your privacy... doesn't work does it?
What's "yikes" about that statement? The production environment should be managed by people who have a wider set of goals than "this app should work to spec" - they are looking for deployability, stability, resilience etc etc etc.
As a developer, I should hand them my app, with a documented install routine and set of environment requirements, and the sysadmins should go from there.
Remember, your "production" environment is not one environment - you have identical test, UAT and (very important for large businesses) business continuity environments. The bones of these environments are something that a developer shouldn't care about - its the systems team that sets them up and manages them, the developer just has a set of requirements to hand them for his app.
If the app runs in development but not in production, then that's a bug to be resolved, and ideally should be resolved on the developer end wherever possible because you do not want highly custom environmental changes for individual apps - that creates huge maintainability issues further on down the road.
Oh. It's worth noting that my approach is not to consider "Production" as one single environment - typically I recommend the UAT, testing and infrastructure development environments to be classed as near-production, and thus fall under the same restrictions as "production".
I usually give developers their own environment identical to UAT where they have full rights to do whatever in - this allows them to create the full documentation for deployment to production, including permissions changes required etc.
Title says it all - giving a developer access means they can deploy undocumented "hacks" and "quick fixes", usually meaning to document and normalise them later on.
Forcing the, to hand off installation and maintenance to a second team means documentation is enforced, standards are enforced and quick fixes are better vetted.
For the record, I wear both hats in different situations for different clients - as a developer I don't care about the production environment, and I like it that way. I care about the bugs the production environment uncovers, so the UAT environment should be identical, but even then the developer shouldn't have to care about it - that's the systems admin teams job.
I didn't miss your biggie, I included a better solution in "rigidly enforce plugin security" - currently, on most browsers its a case of "hey, a plugin, here, have as much access as you like!" and that's stupid.
Stop accepting cookies from anyone except the first origin website for a start - advertisers use their own cookies to track you across sites, using site specific cookies makes tracking you across sites extremely hard. Session cookies aren't an issue - if you are using my website, you don't have any leg to stand on when asking me to not track your usage of my website.
Remove a lot of information from the user agent string. Take it back to browser name, major number, minor number.
Stop allowing plug ins etc to add user agent detail or request header lines.
Treat third party images the same way as cookies.
Rigidly enforce plugin security, so things like Flash cannot maintain cookies etc outside of the browsers control.
Etc etc etc.
There are plenty of things that the browsers need to fess up and fix before DNT can be considered to not be a joke - *asking* third parties not to do "X" when you are leaking that data voluntarily to them each time you request an object is just stupid.
If this was anything else, the onus would be on the one leaking the information - if your medical records were being leaked through system insecurity then the one being decried here on Slashdot would be the source of the leak, not the recipient! Why is this any different?
Your browser is leaking your info - fix that. Trying to stop people taking advantage is so utterly the wrong approach here, its the same as any security related issue - make your end as secure as you possibly can, because the world is a big wide open and very bad place. You cannot control the other end, but you can control what you are leaking.
Also, pathetic hacks like DNT do not work even when backed with legal status - the internet is not one jurisdiction, but your browser certainly is... fix your data leakage at the source, not at the receiving end.
Everywhere in the world? Ballots in the UK have been numbered and had that number recorded against the electoral roll for decades, if not over a hundred years, and no one in the UK is even slightly worried at this.
And it's never been abused, to anyone's knowledge.
I'm not talking about the UI either - this company was getting on fine with Windows 98 right up until late 2004 or so, and it was only the fact that fewer and fewer third party apps supported it that forced the move away. If the required apps still ran on Windows 98 today, the business would still be using Windows 98.
There were plenty of tools around to turn Windows 98 into a fairly decent single user workstation, albeit a fairly unstable one, which added a significant amount of network awareness and security etc. Its tools like those which allowed Windows 98 to become so useful in such environments.
For those who only use email and an office suite, the difference between Windows 98 and Windows 2000/XP is as big as that between XP and Windows 7 - in other words not all that much.
The company I was talking about above survived on Windows 98 until well into 2004, gradually moving machines over to XP because they were precisely not requiring anything more than email and an office suite. So why did they switch? Because it became harder and harder to run newer apps on Windows 98, and that's exactly what's going to kill XP.
Thats a bit strong, considering you know fuck all about the project they are implementing - "internal" doesn't necessarily mean "private", and there are many ways in which public addresses are beneficial.
How many companies use *just* custom DOS programs tho?
A company I worked for for many years used a green screen suite of apps which they had been developing since about 1985 - they started out with dumb terminals, and gradually moved on to Windows with a terminal emulator and then stayed with the terminal emulator while tracking Windows releases. If they had stayed on dumb terminals, their business would have suffered.
The problem here has nothing to do with DOS applications or custom green screen stuff - that can always be accommodated. The real issue is that your suppliers are moving on, and it becomes harder and harder to find new versions of applications which run on your platform - how many new apps are released today which run on Windows 98? Is Windows 98 still a viable OS to run? No.
I seem to remember huge job losses in that industry in the wake of the breaking scandal, so yes - game the system, pay the price. The "price" doesn't always mean incarceration...
Actually, the summary has it the wrong way around - most analysts consider the J-20 to be the Chinese aircraft that will fulfill the same role as the F-35, while this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.
While that is true, it ignores the long road to the launch of the first GPS satellite by the USAF, which includes generationally improving systems by both the US Navy (Transit and Timation in the 1960s) and the US Army (SECOR in the 1960s), all of which were used as the basis for the GPS proposed in the 1970s.
I think the DoD would have something to say about your assertion, since GPS was their toy from day one, ad it was under their budget that the constellation was launched and maintained...
No Christian? I wouldn't go that far - look at the abortion clinic bombings, it's not that far from what we are talking about.
Now, the ultra orthadox Jews are a different matter - even Israel has problems with its Jewish fringe groups, except these aren't really fringe groups - take a look at how tolerant some of them are to Christians in Israeli communities...
Slashdot Mirror
And although I will be going as a tourist, I still need to be able to regularly import large quantities of heroin and cocaine. However, this isn't allowed according to US law, so can anyone suggest how I can circumvent this law largely because I don't accept it and want to carry on with my massive heroin and cocaine habits while there...
Local laws, whether you believe they are right or not, follow them if you want to stay out of jail.
I don't advocate only doing half - I just understand that US laws don't apply to BongaBongaLand and the advertisers based there, so while breaking and entering, trespassing and burglary are all nicely illegal, a similar law won't matter one iota when someone can do all those things without ever coming into your legal jurisdiction. And while currently most advertisers are based in your jurisdiction, they can easily move out of it.
Its also interesting that you used examples of where someone comes into your private property, which doesn't relate at all to a browser voluntarily giving your information out - try something like walking down the road stark bollock naked and trying to claim that someone taking a photo of you is an invasion of your privacy... doesn't work does it?
What's "yikes" about that statement? The production environment should be managed by people who have a wider set of goals than "this app should work to spec" - they are looking for deployability, stability, resilience etc etc etc.
As a developer, I should hand them my app, with a documented install routine and set of environment requirements, and the sysadmins should go from there.
Remember, your "production" environment is not one environment - you have identical test, UAT and (very important for large businesses) business continuity environments. The bones of these environments are something that a developer shouldn't care about - its the systems team that sets them up and manages them, the developer just has a set of requirements to hand them for his app.
If the app runs in development but not in production, then that's a bug to be resolved, and ideally should be resolved on the developer end wherever possible because you do not want highly custom environmental changes for individual apps - that creates huge maintainability issues further on down the road.
Oh. It's worth noting that my approach is not to consider "Production" as one single environment - typically I recommend the UAT, testing and infrastructure development environments to be classed as near-production, and thus fall under the same restrictions as "production".
I usually give developers their own environment identical to UAT where they have full rights to do whatever in - this allows them to create the full documentation for deployment to production, including permissions changes required etc.
Title says it all - giving a developer access means they can deploy undocumented "hacks" and "quick fixes", usually meaning to document and normalise them later on.
Forcing the, to hand off installation and maintenance to a second team means documentation is enforced, standards are enforced and quick fixes are better vetted.
For the record, I wear both hats in different situations for different clients - as a developer I don't care about the production environment, and I like it that way. I care about the bugs the production environment uncovers, so the UAT environment should be identical, but even then the developer shouldn't have to care about it - that's the systems admin teams job.
I didn't miss your biggie, I included a better solution in "rigidly enforce plugin security" - currently, on most browsers its a case of "hey, a plugin, here, have as much access as you like!" and that's stupid.
Stop accepting cookies from anyone except the first origin website for a start - advertisers use their own cookies to track you across sites, using site specific cookies makes tracking you across sites extremely hard. Session cookies aren't an issue - if you are using my website, you don't have any leg to stand on when asking me to not track your usage of my website.
Remove a lot of information from the user agent string. Take it back to browser name, major number, minor number.
Stop allowing plug ins etc to add user agent detail or request header lines.
Treat third party images the same way as cookies.
Rigidly enforce plugin security, so things like Flash cannot maintain cookies etc outside of the browsers control.
Etc etc etc.
There are plenty of things that the browsers need to fess up and fix before DNT can be considered to not be a joke - *asking* third parties not to do "X" when you are leaking that data voluntarily to them each time you request an object is just stupid.
If this was anything else, the onus would be on the one leaking the information - if your medical records were being leaked through system insecurity then the one being decried here on Slashdot would be the source of the leak, not the recipient! Why is this any different?
"Social compact" - what pretentious bollocks.
Your browser is leaking your info - fix that. Trying to stop people taking advantage is so utterly the wrong approach here, its the same as any security related issue - make your end as secure as you possibly can, because the world is a big wide open and very bad place. You cannot control the other end, but you can control what you are leaking.
Also, pathetic hacks like DNT do not work even when backed with legal status - the internet is not one jurisdiction, but your browser certainly is... fix your data leakage at the source, not at the receiving end.
Why should they honour it? It's the browser which is voluntarily giving out identifiable data! Sort your browser out if you don't want to be tracked.
DNT is the same as saying passwords aren't required, because there's a "do not impersonate me" standard.
I'm pretty sure, the last time I looked, the UK was still considered part of Europe ;)
You might want to revise the "everywhere", because phones are certainly sold locked here in the UK.
Everywhere in the world? Ballots in the UK have been numbered and had that number recorded against the electoral roll for decades, if not over a hundred years, and no one in the UK is even slightly worried at this.
And it's never been abused, to anyone's knowledge.
Why should Nvidia have to give a shit about *your* philosophy - that's what I don't understand about this.
! Doesn't mean NOT in CSS :) !important for example....
I'm not talking about the UI either - this company was getting on fine with Windows 98 right up until late 2004 or so, and it was only the fact that fewer and fewer third party apps supported it that forced the move away. If the required apps still ran on Windows 98 today, the business would still be using Windows 98.
There were plenty of tools around to turn Windows 98 into a fairly decent single user workstation, albeit a fairly unstable one, which added a significant amount of network awareness and security etc. Its tools like those which allowed Windows 98 to become so useful in such environments.
For those who only use email and an office suite, the difference between Windows 98 and Windows 2000/XP is as big as that between XP and Windows 7 - in other words not all that much.
The company I was talking about above survived on Windows 98 until well into 2004, gradually moving machines over to XP because they were precisely not requiring anything more than email and an office suite. So why did they switch? Because it became harder and harder to run newer apps on Windows 98, and that's exactly what's going to kill XP.
Thats a bit strong, considering you know fuck all about the project they are implementing - "internal" doesn't necessarily mean "private", and there are many ways in which public addresses are beneficial.
How many companies use *just* custom DOS programs tho?
A company I worked for for many years used a green screen suite of apps which they had been developing since about 1985 - they started out with dumb terminals, and gradually moved on to Windows with a terminal emulator and then stayed with the terminal emulator while tracking Windows releases. If they had stayed on dumb terminals, their business would have suffered.
The problem here has nothing to do with DOS applications or custom green screen stuff - that can always be accommodated. The real issue is that your suppliers are moving on, and it becomes harder and harder to find new versions of applications which run on your platform - how many new apps are released today which run on Windows 98? Is Windows 98 still a viable OS to run? No.
This government is still better than the last government...
I seem to remember huge job losses in that industry in the wake of the breaking scandal, so yes - game the system, pay the price. The "price" doesn't always mean incarceration...
That would be astounding, considering most Chinese aircraft are based on Russian and Ukranian aircraft...
Actually, the summary has it the wrong way around - most analysts consider the J-20 to be the Chinese aircraft that will fulfill the same role as the F-35, while this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.
While that is true, it ignores the long road to the launch of the first GPS satellite by the USAF, which includes generationally improving systems by both the US Navy (Transit and Timation in the 1960s) and the US Army (SECOR in the 1960s), all of which were used as the basis for the GPS proposed in the 1970s.
The USAF didn't do this in isolation.
I think the DoD would have something to say about your assertion, since GPS was their toy from day one, ad it was under their budget that the constellation was launched and maintained...
No Christian? I wouldn't go that far - look at the abortion clinic bombings, it's not that far from what we are talking about.
Now, the ultra orthadox Jews are a different matter - even Israel has problems with its Jewish fringe groups, except these aren't really fringe groups - take a look at how tolerant some of them are to Christians in Israeli communities...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9529123/Vatican-official-says-Israel-fostering-intolerance-of-Christianity.html