And please don't bring up the tea-baggers... that is not a party, it's a lap-dog of the Republican party that's just a little too wacky to gain support from intelligent human beings.
You're the one who brought them up and with that tiresome insult no less. At least the Tea Party is attempting to fix things. What are you doing?
The tea party trying to fix things? Ok, now I know you're beyond reason.
What? No. There's a Republican plan (that involves cutting spending elsewhere to pay for the lower interest rates) that Democrats are blocking debate on. But God forbid Slashdot cover that.
Yeah, it's just that that "elsewhere" is funding for healthcare for poor women.
Nice of you to just gloss over the funding source though, trying to make this look equal.
It's been around forever. Humanity in general is a bunch fo selfish greedy pricks, and when given the opportunity, many will complain about paying to help others.
I see. So when someone else demands some of my money to pay for their expenses, that's OK. But if I object and want to keep the money to pay my own expenses, that's greed. Interesting system you have there.
This comment shows just how effective Fox News' propaganda is at making people truly believe they aren't actively voting against their interests.
Do you make more than $1 million per year? If not then I'm so sorry you've been living under a lie and a false dream.
Again, you're trying to make this all about Google overcoming an "inconvenient"and "broken" default privacy setting.
Nothing about the default setting makes "multi service logins" fail to work since those are selected and approved by the user (for example, checking a box for "keep me logged in" or "remember me" or "keep me logged in across multiple sites". What it *does not* allow is setting a cookie from a third party site - for example, Google's tracking cookie set when you browse to someone else's page (as in, not a Google page) with a G+ button on it, or a google text ad. Google is not allowed to set a cookie in this instance unless the user clicks on the button or advert. They went against the setting by tricking the browser into accepting a first party cookie.
You're twisting and bending in the wind to make Google out to be some sort of innocent party here.
Not sure why you are so insistent on me making "Google out to be the good guy", I consider this one fairly neutral on the web development scale, workarounds and hacks are extremely common in the field. Correctly describing what happens on a technical level is just that, not some sort of white washing. People can still be outraged once they understand what happened, but it's important that they don't picture Google exploiting a security vulnerability (of the code execution kind) and installing spy-ware to track them or ignoring some sort of flag that Google promises not to ignore.
No, they're not installing spyware - I never said that, and no one is accusing them of that. What I am accusing them of, and what they've admitted to, is deliberately going against the privacy setting in Safari by exploiting the browser's behaviour. They didn't do this "accidentally" (and if you believe they did, you are very naive) - they worked out how to get around the setting and exploited it. This is not some harmless "workaround" like some code designed to make web pages display properly in IE or similar, this was purely for Google's financial gain.
Again, there is *nothing* that the user is affected by if they follow the privacy policy as set - by interacting with Google directly, Safari allows cookies to be set.
Look at it this way, I check all of my privacy settings when setting up a browser. I happened to agree with that default setting, so that is how I left it. Are you suggesting that Google "can't really know for sure" what my wishes are regarding privacy? That is a very, very stupid argument. I would suggest that Google *respect the setting that the browser is set to*. It's really not rocket science. The fact that it's the default setting and thus Google should be free to do whatever it likes, including doing the exact opposite of what the setting says via an exploit, is the most ridiculous argument and lame justification for despicable behaviour that I ever heard.
My setting choice was deliberate, and I was affected by this exploit, but according to you, that's fine because how could Google know what I really wanted? I want to be tracked by third party cookies, right? Doesn't everyone? Why wouldn't they want that?!
The setting works perfectly well - if you try to set a third party cookie the browser prevents it.
If that was the case then no cookies would be set and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Be it an exploit or not, the browser is what ignored the setting.
Right - that's the point. The setting works in most cases, it just doesn't work when the exploit is used - that's how exploits work and why they're called that. The setting says (I just checked the exact wording) "Block cookies from:" and then gives three options: third parties and advertisers (default), Always and Never.
As indicated, the default is "third parties and advertisers" and it does this effectively. It is because it does this effectively that Google decided to use an exploit to get around it (ie, tricking Safari into classing it's advertising cookie as a first party cookie). You can twist this around and try to justify it as "Safari allowing it" all you want to try and make Google out to be the good guy here, but quite simply they used an exploit to get around a browser privacy setting. Yes, I understand that Safari "allowed" it by having an exploitable flaw, but that's like saying I "allowed" my car to get stolen because the lock was easy to open with a screwdriver.
I'm not on some anti-Google rant here - I use Google products all the time and I think they are a great force for the web as a whole, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to call them out when they do something obnoxious like this.
Wait, you think this is directed at you? Or at scientists who have dissenting opinions?
Hold on here - I'm talking about the Heartland Institute. They are quite demonstrably *not* the same as a scientist or a member of the public, or you (well, unless you're a member too, in which case I'm so, so sorry that you're that deluded).
They are not scientists, and they have no legitimate arguments - as seen by their need to go for "scare" tactics by equating their opponents to the Unabomber, Castro and Bin Laden. It's the equivalent of saying "anyone who doesn't believe what I say is gay!". Interestingly enough, the boogeyman that they tend to go for is usually the thing that they fear to be called most, so it speaks more to their own psyche than anything else.
There is not more accurate description of the Heartland Institute than "AGW deniers" - it is their sole mission. They set up with that goal in mind (ie, predetermined outcome and agenda to push, regardless of the actual facts at hand).
There certainly are some scientists who believe that AGW has been overstated, but they usually come to that opinion via a scientific approach. I may not agree with them (I don't) but I can argue with them about their method and interpretation of the data. You can't argue with the Heartland Institute, since if you don't agree with what's written in their propaganda then they simply dismiss you or tell people you're the same as Osama Bin Laden. It's hard to really get a handle on how that debate is supposed to go, other than "your argument is silly".
I will argue with people who disagree with me - the science surrounding AGW is complex and extremely broad, and we're still learning as we go. What I won't do is argue with an institution who have been paid handsomely to attack the character of anyone who disagrees with their employers.
"Denier" here is not meant to be offensive, simply accurate. How else would you describe the Heartland Institute succinctly? It cannot be "skeptical" since that implies that they have the capability to look at the argument rationally and form an opinion based on evidence. It is clear they have no intention of doing that. They're not really mavericks either, and I'm sure they're not all old farts.
My aim is not to be offensive, (even in the face of being equated to Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber), it is to point out that categorising them as "deniers" is not the same. Calling for their houses to be burned down or equating them with Nazis *is* the same as what they're doing and is absolutely wrong and offensive - as I pointed out initially.
The fact that you're not classifying Fox News as the "MSM" is telling. That's what they want you to think. Either way, I'll grant almost any source more credibility than an organisation that went to court to defend its right to lie during "news" broadcasts, although that doesn't mean I'll take any mainstream source at face value - most are extremely poor at reporting science news, either through ignorance or maliciously.
That's what encrypted sparsebundles are for, surely (that you can mount at login).
FileVault 2 assumes that multiple users of the same system are mutually trusting of each other. It was not really meant to service multiple users - that's how version 1 worked and it had nothing but issues.
You'll love Mountain Lion then - the exposé behaviour is going back to the pre-Lion way with a setting toggle in preferences. I know several people who wanted that back.
I got into a nasty situation with Vista where it would crash on startup due to some driver and instead of giving me useful information it simply immediately restarted Windows and I got stuck in a loop. I think this was an exception to the rule though - I have hardly ever seen any serious crashes on Windows in the post-Vista (and even in the late-Vista) era. It's pretty stable now, even in the presence of crash-prone drivers.
I wasn't a fan of Lion either after only a few days. It still has some things that have changed over SL that I really wish were back (Save As..., the old version of Preview, etc) but I did grow to like it much more when I got a Magic Trackpad instead of using a mouse. I think a lot of my issues stemmed from accessing it with a mouse. It's been designed (for better or worse) with trackpad users in mind.
Still, I can't really say it's been a step forward for OS X over 10.6 - it's a bit of a wash from a personal standpoint.
No, it's off by default, and if you don't use FileVault (the legacy version) you are effectively not effected - your disk is not encrypted to begin with, and thus starting the machine in target disk mode gives access to your home folder to an attacker (or they can reset your login password with the OS X installer), bit *not* your keychain password which is the same by default, but not if the login password is changed via the root user or another admin).
It's still a bit of a huge security blunder though.
Don't you know us Mac users simply float in the air due to our own sense of self-importance repelling us from doing anything as "normal" as sitting on the ground?
Again, this is not about the setting "lying". The setting works perfectly well - if you try to set a third party cookie the browser prevents it. That is why Google resorted to an exploit to get around it.
Again, the exploit needs to be fixed - that is not in question - but the use of the exploit is not in any way Safari's fault.
Your attempt to get Google off the hook here or somehow justify their choice to deliberately ignore user's settings and invade their privacy by tracking them is quite remarkable. I thought slashdot was all about user privacy and being able to stop companies from knowing your every move online. I guess only when it's not Google doing it, eh?
the battery can be much bigger and the device much smaller, giving you increased battery life for the same size of device.
If the battery is replaceable the life basically depends on how many spares you can fit in you're purse, or whatever you hipsters call it.
Oh, I should have also added that it gives you increased battery life without having the compromise of carrying around spare batteries with you (although that doesn't stop you from carrying around an external battery pack that is the same size as a spare battery in a replaceable model that plugs into the phone to assist the internal battery in times when you really need it).
The insults are also superfluous - I'm not trying to be hostile here. Why do you Apple haters always have to make it into some sort of flame war? I don;t have anything against Android or those who use it, or even those who choose phones with removable batteries. I'm certainly not insulting them for their choices.
Look, I like them as much as the next guy (use Chrome, have gmail, use google maps all the time, use google search etc), but what they did here was wrong on a level that simply can't be handwaved away as "oh, it was a browser fault" or "oh, they didn't realise they were doing it" or "well, it's how it's always been done".
The setting is "no third party cookies unless allowed specifically by the user". Google exploited a flaw to get around that user setting to do it anyway for financial gain. They're also not "being sent to the Gulag" or any such equivalent punishment. They're getting a fine for being naughty.
Slashdot Mirror
And please don't bring up the tea-baggers... that is not a party, it's a lap-dog of the Republican party that's just a little too wacky to gain support from intelligent human beings.
You're the one who brought them up and with that tiresome insult no less. At least the Tea Party is attempting to fix things. What are you doing?
The tea party trying to fix things? Ok, now I know you're beyond reason.
What? No. There's a Republican plan (that involves cutting spending elsewhere to pay for the lower interest rates) that Democrats are blocking debate on. But God forbid Slashdot cover that.
Yeah, it's just that that "elsewhere" is funding for healthcare for poor women.
Nice of you to just gloss over the funding source though, trying to make this look equal.
I see. So when someone else demands some of my money to pay for their expenses, that's OK. But if I object and want to keep the money to pay my own expenses, that's greed. Interesting system you have there.
This comment shows just how effective Fox News' propaganda is at making people truly believe they aren't actively voting against their interests.
Do you make more than $1 million per year? If not then I'm so sorry you've been living under a lie and a false dream.
Again, you're trying to make this all about Google overcoming an "inconvenient"and "broken" default privacy setting.
Nothing about the default setting makes "multi service logins" fail to work since those are selected and approved by the user (for example, checking a box for "keep me logged in" or "remember me" or "keep me logged in across multiple sites". What it *does not* allow is setting a cookie from a third party site - for example, Google's tracking cookie set when you browse to someone else's page (as in, not a Google page) with a G+ button on it, or a google text ad. Google is not allowed to set a cookie in this instance unless the user clicks on the button or advert. They went against the setting by tricking the browser into accepting a first party cookie.
You're twisting and bending in the wind to make Google out to be some sort of innocent party here.
Not sure why you are so insistent on me making "Google out to be the good guy", I consider this one fairly neutral on the web development scale, workarounds and hacks are extremely common in the field. Correctly describing what happens on a technical level is just that, not some sort of white washing. People can still be outraged once they understand what happened, but it's important that they don't picture Google exploiting a security vulnerability (of the code execution kind) and installing spy-ware to track them or ignoring some sort of flag that Google promises not to ignore.
No, they're not installing spyware - I never said that, and no one is accusing them of that. What I am accusing them of, and what they've admitted to, is deliberately going against the privacy setting in Safari by exploiting the browser's behaviour. They didn't do this "accidentally" (and if you believe they did, you are very naive) - they worked out how to get around the setting and exploited it. This is not some harmless "workaround" like some code designed to make web pages display properly in IE or similar, this was purely for Google's financial gain.
Again, there is *nothing* that the user is affected by if they follow the privacy policy as set - by interacting with Google directly, Safari allows cookies to be set.
Look at it this way, I check all of my privacy settings when setting up a browser. I happened to agree with that default setting, so that is how I left it. Are you suggesting that Google "can't really know for sure" what my wishes are regarding privacy? That is a very, very stupid argument. I would suggest that Google *respect the setting that the browser is set to*. It's really not rocket science. The fact that it's the default setting and thus Google should be free to do whatever it likes, including doing the exact opposite of what the setting says via an exploit, is the most ridiculous argument and lame justification for despicable behaviour that I ever heard.
My setting choice was deliberate, and I was affected by this exploit, but according to you, that's fine because how could Google know what I really wanted? I want to be tracked by third party cookies, right? Doesn't everyone? Why wouldn't they want that?!
If that was the case then no cookies would be set and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Be it an exploit or not, the browser is what ignored the setting.
Right - that's the point. The setting works in most cases, it just doesn't work when the exploit is used - that's how exploits work and why they're called that.
The setting says (I just checked the exact wording) "Block cookies from:" and then gives three options: third parties and advertisers (default), Always and Never.
As indicated, the default is "third parties and advertisers" and it does this effectively. It is because it does this effectively that Google decided to use an exploit to get around it (ie, tricking Safari into classing it's advertising cookie as a first party cookie). You can twist this around and try to justify it as "Safari allowing it" all you want to try and make Google out to be the good guy here, but quite simply they used an exploit to get around a browser privacy setting. Yes, I understand that Safari "allowed" it by having an exploitable flaw, but that's like saying I "allowed" my car to get stolen because the lock was easy to open with a screwdriver.
I'm not on some anti-Google rant here - I use Google products all the time and I think they are a great force for the web as a whole, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to call them out when they do something obnoxious like this.
I think this image is apt as a response to your comment (I know, I know, memes, we hate them).
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/200/420/BRTky.jpg?1321408042
That's "LoSalt" and is mainly potassium chloride (approx 60%), but it's not quite sodium free.
Those in the UK wanting the "full cinematic experience" can get that by buying a DVD and then shopping for the popcorn and coke at Waitrose.
Wait, you think this is directed at you? Or at scientists who have dissenting opinions?
Hold on here - I'm talking about the Heartland Institute. They are quite demonstrably *not* the same as a scientist or a member of the public, or you (well, unless you're a member too, in which case I'm so, so sorry that you're that deluded).
They are not scientists, and they have no legitimate arguments - as seen by their need to go for "scare" tactics by equating their opponents to the Unabomber, Castro and Bin Laden. It's the equivalent of saying "anyone who doesn't believe what I say is gay!". Interestingly enough, the boogeyman that they tend to go for is usually the thing that they fear to be called most, so it speaks more to their own psyche than anything else.
There is not more accurate description of the Heartland Institute than "AGW deniers" - it is their sole mission. They set up with that goal in mind (ie, predetermined outcome and agenda to push, regardless of the actual facts at hand).
There certainly are some scientists who believe that AGW has been overstated, but they usually come to that opinion via a scientific approach. I may not agree with them (I don't) but I can argue with them about their method and interpretation of the data. You can't argue with the Heartland Institute, since if you don't agree with what's written in their propaganda then they simply dismiss you or tell people you're the same as Osama Bin Laden. It's hard to really get a handle on how that debate is supposed to go, other than "your argument is silly".
I will argue with people who disagree with me - the science surrounding AGW is complex and extremely broad, and we're still learning as we go. What I won't do is argue with an institution who have been paid handsomely to attack the character of anyone who disagrees with their employers.
"Denier" here is not meant to be offensive, simply accurate. How else would you describe the Heartland Institute succinctly? It cannot be "skeptical" since that implies that they have the capability to look at the argument rationally and form an opinion based on evidence. It is clear they have no intention of doing that. They're not really mavericks either, and I'm sure they're not all old farts.
My aim is not to be offensive, (even in the face of being equated to Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber), it is to point out that categorising them as "deniers" is not the same. Calling for their houses to be burned down or equating them with Nazis *is* the same as what they're doing and is absolutely wrong and offensive - as I pointed out initially.
It's different to calling them deniers because that is an accurate description of their beliefs (they deny that AGW exists).
It's not different to comparing them to Nazis or that their houses should be burned down - that is simply not on.
The fact that you're not classifying Fox News as the "MSM" is telling. That's what they want you to think. Either way, I'll grant almost any source more credibility than an organisation that went to court to defend its right to lie during "news" broadcasts, although that doesn't mean I'll take any mainstream source at face value - most are extremely poor at reporting science news, either through ignorance or maliciously.
Lion suggests that to you when you upgrade if you have the old version of FileVault running.
That's what encrypted sparsebundles are for, surely (that you can mount at login).
FileVault 2 assumes that multiple users of the same system are mutually trusting of each other. It was not really meant to service multiple users - that's how version 1 worked and it had nothing but issues.
That's option B, option A is called "Open Source".
Just playing devil's advocate here, but are you saying that Open Source code is immune to bugs like this?
You'll love Mountain Lion then - the exposé behaviour is going back to the pre-Lion way with a setting toggle in preferences. I know several people who wanted that back.
I got into a nasty situation with Vista where it would crash on startup due to some driver and instead of giving me useful information it simply immediately restarted Windows and I got stuck in a loop. I think this was an exception to the rule though - I have hardly ever seen any serious crashes on Windows in the post-Vista (and even in the late-Vista) era. It's pretty stable now, even in the presence of crash-prone drivers.
I wasn't a fan of Lion either after only a few days. It still has some things that have changed over SL that I really wish were back (Save As..., the old version of Preview, etc) but I did grow to like it much more when I got a Magic Trackpad instead of using a mouse. I think a lot of my issues stemmed from accessing it with a mouse. It's been designed (for better or worse) with trackpad users in mind.
Still, I can't really say it's been a step forward for OS X over 10.6 - it's a bit of a wash from a personal standpoint.
No, it's off by default, and if you don't use FileVault (the legacy version) you are effectively not effected - your disk is not encrypted to begin with, and thus starting the machine in target disk mode gives access to your home folder to an attacker (or they can reset your login password with the OS X installer), bit *not* your keychain password which is the same by default, but not if the login password is changed via the root user or another admin).
It's still a bit of a huge security blunder though.
Chairs?! Pfff.
Don't you know us Mac users simply float in the air due to our own sense of self-importance repelling us from doing anything as "normal" as sitting on the ground?
It's a good job that my password is also the combination to my luggage.
In before "lol Mac users deserve this".
That makes for quite the dangerous security breach.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2830149&cid=39898671
Again, this is not about the setting "lying". The setting works perfectly well - if you try to set a third party cookie the browser prevents it. That is why Google resorted to an exploit to get around it.
Again, the exploit needs to be fixed - that is not in question - but the use of the exploit is not in any way Safari's fault.
Your attempt to get Google off the hook here or somehow justify their choice to deliberately ignore user's settings and invade their privacy by tracking them is quite remarkable. I thought slashdot was all about user privacy and being able to stop companies from knowing your every move online. I guess only when it's not Google doing it, eh?
Double whoosh.
I see you missed my reply to an obvious joke with a joke of my own.
This is known as riffing off each other.
Never mind.
If the battery is replaceable the life basically depends on how many spares you can fit in you're purse, or whatever you hipsters call it.
Oh, I should have also added that it gives you increased battery life without having the compromise of carrying around spare batteries with you (although that doesn't stop you from carrying around an external battery pack that is the same size as a spare battery in a replaceable model that plugs into the phone to assist the internal battery in times when you really need it).
The insults are also superfluous - I'm not trying to be hostile here. Why do you Apple haters always have to make it into some sort of flame war? I don;t have anything against Android or those who use it, or even those who choose phones with removable batteries. I'm certainly not insulting them for their choices.
Like I say, major apoligism for Google here.
Look, I like them as much as the next guy (use Chrome, have gmail, use google maps all the time, use google search etc), but what they did here was wrong on a level that simply can't be handwaved away as "oh, it was a browser fault" or "oh, they didn't realise they were doing it" or "well, it's how it's always been done".
The setting is "no third party cookies unless allowed specifically by the user". Google exploited a flaw to get around that user setting to do it anyway for financial gain. They're also not "being sent to the Gulag" or any such equivalent punishment. They're getting a fine for being naughty.