And how exactly will we become "untethered" from devices?
Probably some kind of subcutaneous chip with your encrypted credentials that allows access to your encrypted data remotely and could be bricked with a single thought if there was impending risk of intrusion.
Another way is if we start using avatars of ourselves for business travel; beam a holographic AI-driven avatar of yourself to whatever business meeting you must attend and skip the queue at the airport! I mean there really is no need for travel apart from tourism if the technology would enable face-to-face meetings to happen remotely.
Flying is expensive and the face-to-face business model is old and bankrupt anyway, really. If your company sells goods and services that people want, they will buy from whatever vendor they can find and take the easiest path to solution they can.
TBH, laptops aren't something you should travel with anyway. All of your data and personal info is at risk anytime you connect to a hotel wifi. I never travel with my computer or use a public computer with any personal info, logins/passwords...etc.
Even traveling with your phone is a bad idea now that it can be 100% copied by gov'ts as you go through airports. Just lock all your electronic stuff up at home and unplug for a vacation.
If you're traveling on business none of your own personal stuff should be on there anyway and insurance would cover the loss of any laptop from damage during checking it in. Good network policy means all your data on that laptop would be effectively backed up on your company servers so the hardware is essentially disposable.
We're at a kind of transition point for electronics anyway. Pretty soon we'll become very untethered from devices and be able to use our own information safely from anywhere without it getting compromised.
However, this untethering is not something that will happen effectively until companies learn to place significant importance on customer satisfaction, security and safety. Most companies are stuck in a cycle of beefing up their profit by cutting the customer experience down... and that's very short sighted.
If I had to travel for business today, I'd get disposable tech and use a thumb drive with a kill switch built into it like this:
Either they aren't thinking this through or they are shills for some government to give them an excuse for another scorched earth policy.
Computers can be made secure most of the time with a little anti-stupidity. Firefox/netflix stops 99.999% of malware unless you whitelist some EvilWebsite. Don't open forwarded emails from your computer-challenged friends & family members.
Sure there are some nasty exploits on almost every platform but most of them require a javascript call to execute or some poor sap to open an attachment and run it.
From my perspective Cannes shot themselves in the foot. A lot of great films are going immediately to stream and this technology has no impact on the story, directing, cinematography or acting.
Are they really this snobby? I can't see a case for eliminating any segment unless that segment poses a real threat to film quality in which case there still remains no reason to eliminate them from contention; if a project isn't good it wouldn't get an award anyway.
None. Zero. They could all go bankrupt and it would be business as usual for me after some slight adjustment.
As soon as the tech giants learn that people couldn't live without them (despite whether it's true or not), that's when they always start creeping into nefarious territory with their policies to push their profits higher.
Fuck Facebook. I left them YEARS ago and haven't looked back. Now when I talk to friends I meet up with, we have something to talk about because they have no idea what I've been up to AND I have no idea what they've been doing lately.
Other than Facebook I'm indifferent to every other large business. I'll buy products that have high quality longevity and are a value to me. The second they tamper with the quality, I lose trust in them and move on to some other product.
I've exited entire markets of products just because none of the offerings were valuable to me. My wallet thanked me for that.
No, it's not. Democracy doesn't give a shit about comment forms on a website.
So you equate Democracy is Oligarchy? Because I can tell you for certain that Oligarchy doesn't care about anything but what Oligarchy can use to fulfill its dream to fully enslave all of humanity. Democracy however cares about hearing every voice and interpreting the meaning of the voice and then acting upon the majority's harmony.
They are going to sue manufacturer of the SUV which was used by terrorists to escape?
I take your point but a vehicle is very different from a communication platform.
The manufacturer of the SUV relinquishes control of the vehicle to the licensed purchaser. The communications platform stays in communication and continues an ongoing relationship with those who could misuse it.
An example of this is if a hostile government used a private company to rig or influence an election with hate speech or false news. The owner of the communication infrastructure used is responsible to take appropriate measures to prevent the misuse of the platform through active moderation of said platform because they are taking part by continuing to profit from this misuse.
The same is not true for a cell provider because the use of the cellphone is private whereas the communication platform is public.
Governments don't understand that social media can be easily forged to appear normal enough and puppet accounts are easy enough to manufacture. The equation of security awareness with user profiling is a foolhardy notion at best. The skilled will use this to their advantage while the unskilled may be inappropriately harmed by false positives.
True security awareness must be undetected by the masses and after continual thought on this subject, such awareness is as critical as it is dangerous. The body of data available online does not reveal anything through the noise and only works to eliminate unintelligent threats against any nation.
However, enough people are willing to fork over intimate details about who they are and what their beliefs are. And those who are but shadows in the social areas are more likely to also suffer the consequences of a false positive due to their care and caution against leaving a footprint.
What is an ideal citizen and who gets to decide that? What does it mean when opposing parties secure their power rather than secure true safety for a population?
We could face a total enslavement to AI eventually, even with cautious practices; these policies only help human beings to tighten our own collective noose.
Once a policy exists for one small demographic, in this case new immigrants, that policy can easily widen to 100% of all citizens. However, we should assume that even today, everything we say or do online is added to the international security blueprint. Very few get to decide how that information is used and most of them are sociopathic narcissists, because that appears to be one of the hallmark traits of many a politician.
What's better though, through knowing about this, is that we can identify a clear path through such adversity and find ways to protect citizens from such potential threats.
There are threats to sovereignty and safety and we can look carefully at protecting all people from injustice but only if we get a clear understanding about what injustice is, where it comes from and how it can be averted effectively.
I'm very apolitical and don't care about Trump or Clinton. Trump is the elected president and therefore it makes no difference to me if he has a low approval rating or if his approvals were to spike to the highest levels on record. The American people wanted him as their president. Russia poured a lot of money into his campaign, it is reported, but they could easily do that to anyone running so I see it as a fair playing field under the current rules.
If Americans lack critical thinking methods to distinguish between astroturf or genuine appeal, then their democracy will extend that lack of intelligence and eventually it will cost them their place in the world as the #1 superpower because the only decisions that weaken the USA in the long run are the ones anyone voting should be concerned with.
I may disagree with all of Trump's policy but my opinion is not important. Only facts are important, which Trump's people are certainly deadset against; they say anything they want and deny factual accounts consistently.
This won't help the USA in the long run and they will certainly pay a high price for this administration's ineptitude in lost GDP and lost global relationships.
But at the end of the day, USA elected him and I believe in democracy.
If I place my hand in a fire and it hurts and my reaction is to place my other hand in the fire so that I notice my first hand's pain less, well then I certainly deserve the consequences of that stupidity.
...its not the developers of the software rejecting the suggestions -- its users of the software that often react sourly to improvement suggestions that could, if implemented well, benefit a lot of people using the software in question.
When you arrive to some forum and post a suggestion, you are in competition with other people who use the software and might not want to divert developer attention away from bugs or improvements already slated. Another probable reason is competition between suggestions by users vying for developer time. These people shooting down your ideas probably made some other suggestions and had them shot down by other users, or alternatively have some suggestions still pending, so they view your suggestion as a threat.
There could be technical reasons why your suggestion shouldn't be implemented and users may instinctively know this because they are often experts on that particular piece of software as they use it daily.
However, as a developer myself, I can assure you that I always dig deeper to determine if the users have valid feedback or if their feedback is only playing politics.
Good ideas always influence me, even if they are imperfect ideas and would need some adjusting to become viable.
Buzzfeed seems to only link their own articles in their stories, so it's not convenient to fact-check them. I would have prefered some other information on this subject and since there is none in the TFA, I will provide you with some more info on this lobbying dollout:
From an obnoxious website that I won't link because of how totally obnoxious their javascript is; you may wish to read this anyway:
f the surprising election win by President-elect Donald Trump left you feeling dispirited, you may be looking for a way to take action. One way you could do so is donating money or time to causes you believe stand against Trump's politics. Conversely, you could hold back your money â" by boycotting companies and/or corporate executives that stand against your beliefs. As of mid-September, no CEO of a Fortune 100 company supported Trump by donating to his campaign. But in other ways, and in the time since, a few big companies have shown support for the president-elect â" directly or indirectly. Here are five examples. New Balance The day after the election, Matthew LeBretton, vice president of public affairs for the sneaker brand New Balance, told a Wall Street Journal reporter: "The Obama administration turned a deaf ear to us and frankly with President-elect Donald Trump, we feel things are going to move in the right direction." After that message went out, angry people on Twitter shared photos showing them destroying or trashing their New Balance shoes. In response, New Balance issued a statement to Sole Collector clarifying its position. "As the only major company that still makes athletic shoes in the United States, New Balance has a unique perspective on trade and trade policy in that we want to make more shoes in the United States, not less," the statement reads. "New Balance publicly supported the trade positions of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump prior to Election Day that focused on American manufacturing job creation and we continue to support them today." Yuengling On a final campaign swing through Pennsylvania at the end of October, Trump's son Eric stopped by the Yuengling Brewery in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Richard "Dick" Yuengling Jr., who is 73 and the fifth-generation owner of the nation's oldest beer company, gave him a tour. "Our guys are behind your father," Yuengling said, the Reading Eagle reported. "We need him in there." Eric Trump promised a Trump presidency would help businesses like Yuengling, a $550 million company with breweries in Pottsville and East Norwegian Township in Pennsylvania and Tampa, Florida. "Maybe your dad will build a hotel in Pottsville, or serve Yuengling in his hotels," Yuengling said, jokingly, according to the Eagle. Following the visit, there were calls on Twitter for a consumer boycott of the beermaker. Home Depot Kenneth Langone, one of the co-founders of Home Depot, has been publicly supporting Trump since May. After supporting GOP presidential candidates New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and then Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Langone settled on Trump. "And you want to know something?" Langone said on CNBC's "Closing Bell" in May. "I think he'll do a hell of a good job. At least I'm hoping." Langone even doubled down after Trump bragged about sexual assault in the bus video leaked in October. When asked for comment about the Langone's support, Stephen Holmes, the director of corporate communications for Home Depot said: "The Home Depot nor our CEO endorse Presidential candidates. Ken is a co-founder, and was once on our board of direc
Subway just shot itself in the foot here. This is a Barbara Streisand move that will only further expose Subway as a bad company with bad faith practices. Their sales will totally tank because of this and I would be surprised if they haven't already been hit really hard by their own stupidity. No empathy from me. They should have owned up to it and issued an apology and discontinued this bad product.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today strengthened its commitment to net neutrality by declaring that Internet service providers should treat data traffic equally to foster consumer choice, innovation and the free exchange of ideas. As such, the CRTC today is publishing a new framework regarding differential pricing practices.
The CBC basically got it wrong by generalizing the word services when in fact the government is talking about data types (data stream, web, email, voip...etc).
The government is basically saying they will not allow ISPs to throttle data types that are considered to be bandwidth consuming. The broad strokes here are that Netflix won't be going at a snail's pace and your gaming bandwidth won't dry up in Canada or the ISP will face regulatory charges and also be required to compensate users for breaking the law.
tl;dr: this is a set of "non-interference" regulations that bind ISPs from screwing over their customers.
Sometimes in history, a ruler will change someone's last name if there was reason to either make an example of them or to reward them. Goodenough as a last name speaks to that.
Jail time for anyone involved, or we will keep seeing fauds like this in the IT safety community. I have no tolerance for unethical people in this business and neither should you!
I can remember playing when I was a kid. Was so addictive and fun to play that people would gather around and try to beat each person before them, get the high score. Many a weekly allowance wasted on this title... but the better you got at the game, the cheaper it became to play.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably some kind of subcutaneous chip with your encrypted credentials that allows access to your encrypted data remotely and could be bricked with a single thought if there was impending risk of intrusion.
Another way is if we start using avatars of ourselves for business travel; beam a holographic AI-driven avatar of yourself to whatever business meeting you must attend and skip the queue at the airport! I mean there really is no need for travel apart from tourism if the technology would enable face-to-face meetings to happen remotely.
Flying is expensive and the face-to-face business model is old and bankrupt anyway, really. If your company sells goods and services that people want, they will buy from whatever vendor they can find and take the easiest path to solution they can.
TBH, laptops aren't something you should travel with anyway. All of your data and personal info is at risk anytime you connect to a hotel wifi. I never travel with my computer or use a public computer with any personal info, logins/passwords...etc.
Even traveling with your phone is a bad idea now that it can be 100% copied by gov'ts as you go through airports. Just lock all your electronic stuff up at home and unplug for a vacation.
If you're traveling on business none of your own personal stuff should be on there anyway and insurance would cover the loss of any laptop from damage during checking it in. Good network policy means all your data on that laptop would be effectively backed up on your company servers so the hardware is essentially disposable.
We're at a kind of transition point for electronics anyway. Pretty soon we'll become very untethered from devices and be able to use our own information safely from anywhere without it getting compromised.
However, this untethering is not something that will happen effectively until companies learn to place significant importance on customer satisfaction, security and safety. Most companies are stuck in a cycle of beefing up their profit by cutting the customer experience down... and that's very short sighted.
If I had to travel for business today, I'd get disposable tech and use a thumb drive with a kill switch built into it like this:
https://youtu.be/fnwC2dmZKlA
We all know that this outage was caused by bad faith outsourcing to unqualified persons. Who are they kidding?
https://www.theguardian.com/bu...
Oh yeah, power surges are to blame! haha no.
/facepalm
Thanks, Autocorrect!
Either they aren't thinking this through or they are shills for some government to give them an excuse for another scorched earth policy.
Computers can be made secure most of the time with a little anti-stupidity. Firefox/netflix stops 99.999% of malware unless you whitelist some EvilWebsite. Don't open forwarded emails from your computer-challenged friends & family members.
Sure there are some nasty exploits on almost every platform but most of them require a javascript call to execute or some poor sap to open an attachment and run it.
From my perspective Cannes shot themselves in the foot. A lot of great films are going immediately to stream and this technology has no impact on the story, directing, cinematography or acting.
Are they really this snobby? I can't see a case for eliminating any segment unless that segment poses a real threat to film quality in which case there still remains no reason to eliminate them from contention; if a project isn't good it wouldn't get an award anyway.
None. Zero. They could all go bankrupt and it would be business as usual for me after some slight adjustment.
As soon as the tech giants learn that people couldn't live without them (despite whether it's true or not), that's when they always start creeping into nefarious territory with their policies to push their profits higher.
I'd also like to add that Facebook was caught performing psychological experiments on their users that included attempting to make users extremely sad.
Fuck Facebook. I left them YEARS ago and haven't looked back. Now when I talk to friends I meet up with, we have something to talk about because they have no idea what I've been up to AND I have no idea what they've been doing lately.
Other than Facebook I'm indifferent to every other large business. I'll buy products that have high quality longevity and are a value to me. The second they tamper with the quality, I lose trust in them and move on to some other product.
I've exited entire markets of products just because none of the offerings were valuable to me. My wallet thanked me for that.
So you equate Democracy is Oligarchy? Because I can tell you for certain that Oligarchy doesn't care about anything but what Oligarchy can use to fulfill its dream to fully enslave all of humanity. Democracy however cares about hearing every voice and interpreting the meaning of the voice and then acting upon the majority's harmony.
Thank you for linking some other sources here as I certainly prefer to get my journalism from less tarnished or bought-and-paid-for sources.
I take your point but a vehicle is very different from a communication platform.
The manufacturer of the SUV relinquishes control of the vehicle to the licensed purchaser. The communications platform stays in communication and continues an ongoing relationship with those who could misuse it.
An example of this is if a hostile government used a private company to rig or influence an election with hate speech or false news. The owner of the communication infrastructure used is responsible to take appropriate measures to prevent the misuse of the platform through active moderation of said platform because they are taking part by continuing to profit from this misuse.
The same is not true for a cell provider because the use of the cellphone is private whereas the communication platform is public.
Governments don't understand that social media can be easily forged to appear normal enough and puppet accounts are easy enough to manufacture. The equation of security awareness with user profiling is a foolhardy notion at best. The skilled will use this to their advantage while the unskilled may be inappropriately harmed by false positives.
True security awareness must be undetected by the masses and after continual thought on this subject, such awareness is as critical as it is dangerous. The body of data available online does not reveal anything through the noise and only works to eliminate unintelligent threats against any nation.
However, enough people are willing to fork over intimate details about who they are and what their beliefs are. And those who are but shadows in the social areas are more likely to also suffer the consequences of a false positive due to their care and caution against leaving a footprint.
What is an ideal citizen and who gets to decide that? What does it mean when opposing parties secure their power rather than secure true safety for a population?
We could face a total enslavement to AI eventually, even with cautious practices; these policies only help human beings to tighten our own collective noose.
Once a policy exists for one small demographic, in this case new immigrants, that policy can easily widen to 100% of all citizens. However, we should assume that even today, everything we say or do online is added to the international security blueprint. Very few get to decide how that information is used and most of them are sociopathic narcissists, because that appears to be one of the hallmark traits of many a politician.
What's better though, through knowing about this, is that we can identify a clear path through such adversity and find ways to protect citizens from such potential threats.
There are threats to sovereignty and safety and we can look carefully at protecting all people from injustice but only if we get a clear understanding about what injustice is, where it comes from and how it can be averted effectively.
Incompetence or intentional.
I'm very apolitical and don't care about Trump or Clinton. Trump is the elected president and therefore it makes no difference to me if he has a low approval rating or if his approvals were to spike to the highest levels on record. The American people wanted him as their president. Russia poured a lot of money into his campaign, it is reported, but they could easily do that to anyone running so I see it as a fair playing field under the current rules.
If Americans lack critical thinking methods to distinguish between astroturf or genuine appeal, then their democracy will extend that lack of intelligence and eventually it will cost them their place in the world as the #1 superpower because the only decisions that weaken the USA in the long run are the ones anyone voting should be concerned with.
I may disagree with all of Trump's policy but my opinion is not important. Only facts are important, which Trump's people are certainly deadset against; they say anything they want and deny factual accounts consistently.
This won't help the USA in the long run and they will certainly pay a high price for this administration's ineptitude in lost GDP and lost global relationships.
But at the end of the day, USA elected him and I believe in democracy.
If I place my hand in a fire and it hurts and my reaction is to place my other hand in the fire so that I notice my first hand's pain less, well then I certainly deserve the consequences of that stupidity.
This is journalism lingo for "he's not a script kiddie, and was successful at exploiting vulnerabilities on a large scale".
When you arrive to some forum and post a suggestion, you are in competition with other people who use the software and might not want to divert developer attention away from bugs or improvements already slated. Another probable reason is competition between suggestions by users vying for developer time. These people shooting down your ideas probably made some other suggestions and had them shot down by other users, or alternatively have some suggestions still pending, so they view your suggestion as a threat.
There could be technical reasons why your suggestion shouldn't be implemented and users may instinctively know this because they are often experts on that particular piece of software as they use it daily.
However, as a developer myself, I can assure you that I always dig deeper to determine if the users have valid feedback or if their feedback is only playing politics.
Good ideas always influence me, even if they are imperfect ideas and would need some adjusting to become viable.
Buzzfeed seems to only link their own articles in their stories, so it's not convenient to fact-check them. I would have prefered some other information on this subject and since there is none in the TFA, I will provide you with some more info on this lobbying dollout:
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
http://www.cbronline.com/news/...
From an obnoxious website that I won't link because of how totally obnoxious their javascript is; you may wish to read this anyway:
Subway just shot itself in the foot here. This is a Barbara Streisand move that will only further expose Subway as a bad company with bad faith practices. Their sales will totally tank because of this and I would be surprised if they haven't already been hit really hard by their own stupidity. No empathy from me. They should have owned up to it and issued an apology and discontinued this bad product.
FTA:
The CBC basically got it wrong by generalizing the word services when in fact the government is talking about data types (data stream, web, email, voip...etc).
The government is basically saying they will not allow ISPs to throttle data types that are considered to be bandwidth consuming. The broad strokes here are that Netflix won't be going at a snail's pace and your gaming bandwidth won't dry up in Canada or the ISP will face regulatory charges and also be required to compensate users for breaking the law.
tl;dr: this is a set of "non-interference" regulations that bind ISPs from screwing over their customers.
Sometimes in history, a ruler will change someone's last name if there was reason to either make an example of them or to reward them. Goodenough as a last name speaks to that.
But then I found this: http://www.surnamedb.com/Surna...
Jail time for anyone involved, or we will keep seeing fauds like this in the IT safety community. I have no tolerance for unethical people in this business and neither should you!
Whenever this comes on tv, I stop and watch it. I can't help myself and I can't think of any other sci-fi that has the same grip on me.
ie: narcissism is still currency in 100yrs
RIP.
I can remember playing when I was a kid. Was so addictive and fun to play that people would gather around and try to beat each person before them, get the high score. Many a weekly allowance wasted on this title... but the better you got at the game, the cheaper it became to play.
2016 seems like a year where far too many awesome people died, but it's just the baby boomer curve.
2017 will be much worse.
The scorpion in this apt project name is certainly Microsoft, while the frog represents the gamers, the industry and our control.