And what does popularism get you? A deep and long depression, unemployment and no less immigrants.
Absolutely. The biggest worry is that the government maintains the same level of immigration to keep business costs (i.e. wages) low, but that without the preference to European countries that means more Muslims - with the consequent increase of child rape gangs, terrorist acts, "honour" killings, no-go-areas etc.
Not quite the same. Nice try though. To satisfy my requirements it should provide virtualized hardware to guest operating systems which should require no modifications to their kernel. Potentially running Windows 10 or Ubuntu.
So when do we see an OS written in Javascript controlling all aspects of a pc's motherboard, processor etc?
Irrelevant to whether something is a programming language or not.
Some fool is bound to write a virtualization system in Javascript one of these days. Then they can implement an operating system written in Javascript on their virtualization system.
Which is really seriously stupid since almost anyone can fake a signature.
No one looks at the signatures ever. Theres a youtube video of a guy trying to see how far he could push this. He was buying things on a signature of "Not authorized"
The identity of the hacker(s) is not very relevant to Schneier's point. There are players out there who are quite interested in either influencing the results of the elections or just making mischief, and the US is not well-protected against these parties.
Quite probably some of those parties were involved in its creation and deliberately set it up to be unsecure. So then what? They are supposed to put aside their vested interest and allow it to be secured so they can't fuck with it? Hardly likely!
> For example, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia was behind the release of DNC emails before the party convention
Citation sorely needed. The DNC has suggested it's possible Russia was involved. A small security company called ThreatConnect pointed out that one of the tools used had some Russian language strings, meaning that the attacker used a tool which was written by someone who spoke Russian.
"US intelligence agencies" have announced no conclusions and there is scant evidence that "Russia", the Russian government, was involved.
'US Intelligence' is an oxymoron, especially when it comes to politics.
If they somehow make a third party candidate win...
The whole point of electronic voting is so that its unsecure and the ruling elite can use that unsecurity to ensure they stay in power.
Now that foreign players have entered the fray theres no telling what will happen next. Perhaps the ruling elite in the USA may find themselves unseated in an electronic coup!
I've not heard what you describe but the most likely explanation is some sort of territorial problem where other parts of the world got a programme but it wasn't licensed in your country. If so, it would be a crazy decision to not produce and broadcast a program anywhere because it's not allowed in one country. What if people in other countries wanted to hear about that story? Your anger is misplaced.
'The program' was the world service news, on the hour, every hour. Not just any old program of content. Blocking that is just insane. Why even bother having a world service? Thats the only thing I wanted to listen to, so why would I continue to 'patronize' it?
With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.
That's nice, but most of them out there don't have temperature control. That costs substantially more. And we've all seen people exhale big clouds of vapor, right?
Yeah I have to believe that those big clouds coming out of them can effectively create a 'second hand vape' effect. Not something I'd want around my kid.
That's a powerfully stupid reason to stop listening to the BBC World Service.
The point of the Word Service is to provide a free, relatively unbiased news source. The point of the Olympic Games is to make a profit from sport events, including selling access to coverage of the events, which is controlled in ways entirely governed by the Olympic committee. The BBC is therefore prevented from accessing some coverage and is charged for the coverage it can obtain. It doesn't prevent the BBC from running stories about the Olympics; for example, the shocking lack of hygiene in the Rio games.
My problem is not that the BBC didn't cover the Olympics. Its that the BBC world service was literally a loop of "due to rights restrictions we are unable to bring you this program" repeated over and over again for half an hour. From when the Olympics started to when it finished.
During the Olympics there WAS NO WORLD SERVICE, at least where I was.
What the BBC should have done was not cover anything related to the Olympics at all and continue to deliver other news.
This from someone who probably has his own personal cinema and is totally out of touch with the realities of watching a movie with other people (who he didn't personally invite).
I don't want a movie theater to be a social experience. Consider:
* The rotten parents who bring their too-young children to adult films.
* That ridiculous moron in the row behind you who can't get off their cell phone for 5 minutes.
* The 10-year old who won't stop kicking your chair.
* The guffawing dimwit who laughs like a throat-cancer riddled donkey and does so incessantly.
* Paying $12 bucks for crappy popcorn covered in artificially flavored cottonseed oil.
* The gang-bangers who decided that the parking lot is a hugely entertaining place to spend some time... people-watching (and yelling).
I've not been to a theater film in 8 years and I've no plans on changing that.
This.
People do not go to the cinema for a social experience, they go to watch a movie. The social experience effectively makes the cinema a less appealing movie watching experience. But you can't prevent the cinema from being a social experience because you are jamming people into a cinema together. What? Are you going to jam people in a cinema into individual soundproof boxes?
I doubt there is any workable solution that will make cinema worthwhile.
Give me free popcorn and Coke, give me front row seats, remove the schmucks that talk or text all though the movie and a front row parking spot in front of the building... I'll come.:)
Take away your noisy popcorn and coke that spills on the floor and makes it sticky. You'll still come? Because otherwise I'm not going.
How will screaming kids, sticky floors and overpriced snacks help them stop piracy?
The theater/cinema experience is just too horrible. To make it less horrible they will have to: Stop selling popcorn and pop at the theaters. Use cellphone jammers. Have people who talk forcibly silenced. Refuse entry to children.
No, this is not going to work out. Cinemas are dead.
They want *their* publicity about the games. They don't want anyone else with any naughty unauthorized publicity about the games. They are going to attract this in spades. People will feel encouraged to give the IOC the finger.
During one Olympics, the BBC world service news on the hour was replaced with the announcement: "Due to rights restrictions we are unable to bring you this program".
I stopped listening to the BBC world service and stopped expressing any interest in the Olympics.
Whats the point in having a world news that you can't broadcast due to rights restrictions??
I always wondered how everyone understood measurements given by the UK show Top Gear when they talk about miles, miles per hour and horsepower. Not to mention pints.
Yeah they call a large glass of beer 'a pint' but its not literally a pint of liquid, its just a euphemism. If you empty your glass and get a measuring jug, fill it to 1 pint of water then pour it into the glass it'll overflow. I've done this.
Even weirder: the old saying, "a pint's a pound, the world around", when that's only true in the US.
There are DVRs (admittedly +$/month) to remove the "appointment viewing". OnDemand (often included) service will often show the newly released episodes within a few days of airing, then there's the "apps" available if you pay for a cable subscription, and there's always solutions like Myth or the many replacements for Windows Media Center that are popping up.
Appointment viewing was an issue 5 or 6 yrs ago, now it's only a problem if you don't want to rent (or build) a DVR system, don't watch shows that the station provides streaming episodes for, and it's not one of the several popular shows the are included with OnDemand service at any given point. And really, if none of those options are viable for you, appointment viewing should be the least of your concerns.
Why would I use a DVR? I have the Internet and a computer. A DVR is useful for just one thing.
The headline says 'Lastpass accounts can be completely compromised'.
But this isn't a method of getting the Lastpass account password itself, its a way of getting passwords for specific sites that the malicious site is trying to get passwords for.
That isn't 'completely' compromising the Lastpass account.
I'm sorry if I'm being dense to a joke, but are you serious? They don't need to sample you personally to get a pretty good idea of what people's habits are. A few thousand ought to do it, and there are hundreds of millions of Americans. The chances of you being sampled are minuscule.
I feel left out so I don't believe their statistical sampling works!
In reality I do believe that their method of taking the samples is very likely to be biased and produce inaccurate results. Talking about this in the USA where they go to great lengths to, eg, ensure that black and hispanic voters have a hard time getting a drivers license to reduce their likelyhood of voting. I can't believe that the media corps are any better than the government in this kind of demographic shaping.
Exactly. When your data set attributes can't be compared... I think the layman term is "apples and oranges". In the end, from a human perspective, the main attribute is perceived value of the service, rather than "cost per hour of content".
More like individual apples vs cases of various fruits.
cable is not the same as netflix. Cable is the transport media of content. Netflix is one example of content whose transport media is internet. Internet is a fucking lot bigger than netflix. Cable is just some third party deciding what you get to watch.
Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.
Yeah but thats what the rest of the Internet is for.
I don't think the comparison should be Netflix vs cable. In the case of cable, its just the medium and the content is on top. In the case of Netflix its just the content, not the medium that carries it. What they should have done is compare cable vs internet ie Netflix plus youtube plus everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
And what does popularism get you? A deep and long depression, unemployment and no less immigrants.
Absolutely. The biggest worry is that the government maintains the same level of immigration to keep business costs (i.e. wages) low, but that without the preference to European countries that means more Muslims - with the consequent increase of child rape gangs, terrorist acts, "honour" killings, no-go-areas etc.
Or worse; more Australians.
Some fool is bound to write a virtualization system in Javascript one of these days.....
A determined fellow did (well nearly, it's a PC emulator in JS - that runs Linux)
Not quite the same. Nice try though. To satisfy my requirements it should provide virtualized hardware to guest operating systems which should require no modifications to their kernel. Potentially running Windows 10 or Ubuntu.
Javascript is a "programming language"?
Yes, it is.
So when do we see an OS written in Javascript controlling all aspects of a pc's motherboard, processor etc?
Irrelevant to whether something is a programming language or not.
Some fool is bound to write a virtualization system in Javascript one of these days. Then they can implement an operating system written in Javascript on their virtualization system.
Is there a hardware Javascript engine?
And Tim Choate (Zathras)
Wait, which Zathras was that? Was that Zathras or his brother Zathras?
Which is really seriously stupid since almost anyone can fake a signature.
No one looks at the signatures ever. Theres a youtube video of a guy trying to see how far he could push this. He was buying things on a signature of "Not authorized"
The identity of the hacker(s) is not very relevant to Schneier's point. There are players out there who are quite interested in either influencing the results of the elections or just making mischief, and the US is not well-protected against these parties.
Quite probably some of those parties were involved in its creation and deliberately set it up to be unsecure. So then what? They are supposed to put aside their vested interest and allow it to be secured so they can't fuck with it? Hardly likely!
> For example, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia was behind the release of DNC emails before the party convention
Citation sorely needed. The DNC has suggested it's possible Russia was involved. A small security company called ThreatConnect pointed out that one of the tools used had some Russian language strings, meaning that the attacker used a tool which was written by someone who spoke Russian.
"US intelligence agencies" have announced no conclusions and there is scant evidence that "Russia", the Russian government, was involved.
'US Intelligence' is an oxymoron, especially when it comes to politics.
If they somehow make a third party candidate win...
The whole point of electronic voting is so that its unsecure and the ruling elite can use that unsecurity to ensure they stay in power.
Now that foreign players have entered the fray theres no telling what will happen next. Perhaps the ruling elite in the USA may find themselves unseated in an electronic coup!
I've not heard what you describe but the most likely explanation is some sort of territorial problem where other parts of the world got a programme but it wasn't licensed in your country. If so, it would be a crazy decision to not produce and broadcast a program anywhere because it's not allowed in one country. What if people in other countries wanted to hear about that story? Your anger is misplaced.
'The program' was the world service news, on the hour, every hour. Not just any old program of content. Blocking that is just insane. Why even bother having a world service? Thats the only thing I wanted to listen to, so why would I continue to 'patronize' it?
With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.
That's nice, but most of them out there don't have temperature control. That costs substantially more. And we've all seen people exhale big clouds of vapor, right?
Yeah I have to believe that those big clouds coming out of them can effectively create a 'second hand vape' effect. Not something I'd want around my kid.
That's a powerfully stupid reason to stop listening to the BBC World Service.
The point of the Word Service is to provide a free, relatively unbiased news source. The point of the Olympic Games is to make a profit from sport events, including selling access to coverage of the events, which is controlled in ways entirely governed by the Olympic committee. The BBC is therefore prevented from accessing some coverage and is charged for the coverage it can obtain. It doesn't prevent the BBC from running stories about the Olympics; for example, the shocking lack of hygiene in the Rio games.
My problem is not that the BBC didn't cover the Olympics. Its that the BBC world service was literally a loop of "due to rights restrictions we are unable to bring you this program" repeated over and over again for half an hour. From when the Olympics started to when it finished.
During the Olympics there WAS NO WORLD SERVICE, at least where I was.
What the BBC should have done was not cover anything related to the Olympics at all and continue to deliver other news.
This from someone who probably has his own personal cinema and is totally out of touch with the realities of watching a movie with other people (who he didn't personally invite).
I don't want a movie theater to be a social experience. Consider:
* The rotten parents who bring their too-young children to adult films.
* That ridiculous moron in the row behind you who can't get off their cell phone for 5 minutes.
* The 10-year old who won't stop kicking your chair.
* The guffawing dimwit who laughs like a throat-cancer riddled donkey and does so incessantly.
* Paying $12 bucks for crappy popcorn covered in artificially flavored cottonseed oil.
* The gang-bangers who decided that the parking lot is a hugely entertaining place to spend some time ... people-watching (and yelling).
I've not been to a theater film in 8 years and I've no plans on changing that.
This.
People do not go to the cinema for a social experience, they go to watch a movie.
The social experience effectively makes the cinema a less appealing movie watching experience.
But you can't prevent the cinema from being a social experience because you are jamming people into a cinema together.
What? Are you going to jam people in a cinema into individual soundproof boxes?
I doubt there is any workable solution that will make cinema worthwhile.
Give me free popcorn and Coke, give me front row seats, remove the schmucks that talk or text all though the movie and a front row parking spot in front of the building... I'll come. :)
Take away your noisy popcorn and coke that spills on the floor and makes it sticky. You'll still come? Because otherwise I'm not going.
So its down to -1+1=0
How will screaming kids, sticky floors and overpriced snacks help them stop piracy?
The theater/cinema experience is just too horrible. To make it less horrible they will have to:
Stop selling popcorn and pop at the theaters.
Use cellphone jammers.
Have people who talk forcibly silenced.
Refuse entry to children.
No, this is not going to work out. Cinemas are dead.
Umm... they want publicity about the games.
They want *their* publicity about the games. They don't want anyone else with any naughty unauthorized publicity about the games. They are going to attract this in spades. People will feel encouraged to give the IOC the finger.
She wants her 'effect' back.
During one Olympics, the BBC world service news on the hour was replaced with the announcement:
"Due to rights restrictions we are unable to bring you this program".
I stopped listening to the BBC world service and stopped expressing any interest in the Olympics.
Whats the point in having a world news that you can't broadcast due to rights restrictions??
I always wondered how everyone understood measurements given by the UK show Top Gear when they talk about miles, miles per hour and horsepower. Not to mention pints.
Yeah they call a large glass of beer 'a pint' but its not literally a pint of liquid, its just a euphemism. If you empty your glass and get a measuring jug, fill it to 1 pint of water then pour it into the glass it'll overflow. I've done this.
Even weirder: the old saying, "a pint's a pound, the world around", when that's only true in the US.
Wait I thought the USA used dollars?!?!?
There are DVRs (admittedly +$/month) to remove the "appointment viewing". OnDemand (often included) service will often show the newly released episodes within a few days of airing, then there's the "apps" available if you pay for a cable subscription, and there's always solutions like Myth or the many replacements for Windows Media Center that are popping up.
Appointment viewing was an issue 5 or 6 yrs ago, now it's only a problem if you don't want to rent (or build) a DVR system, don't watch shows that the station provides streaming episodes for, and it's not one of the several popular shows the are included with OnDemand service at any given point. And really, if none of those options are viable for you, appointment viewing should be the least of your concerns.
Why would I use a DVR? I have the Internet and a computer. A DVR is useful for just one thing.
The headline says 'Lastpass accounts can be completely compromised'.
But this isn't a method of getting the Lastpass account password itself, its a way of getting passwords for specific sites that the malicious site is trying to get passwords for.
That isn't 'completely' compromising the Lastpass account.
I'm sorry if I'm being dense to a joke, but are you serious? They don't need to sample you personally to get a pretty good idea of what people's habits are. A few thousand ought to do it, and there are hundreds of millions of Americans. The chances of you being sampled are minuscule.
I feel left out so I don't believe their statistical sampling works!
In reality I do believe that their method of taking the samples is very likely to be biased and produce inaccurate results. Talking about this in the USA where they go to great lengths to, eg, ensure that black and hispanic voters have a hard time getting a drivers license to reduce their likelyhood of voting. I can't believe that the media corps are any better than the government in this kind of demographic shaping.
Exactly. When your data set attributes can't be compared... I think the layman term is "apples and oranges".
In the end, from a human perspective, the main attribute is perceived value of the service, rather than "cost per hour of content".
More like individual apples vs cases of various fruits.
cable is not the same as netflix. Cable is the transport media of content. Netflix is one example of content whose transport media is internet. Internet is a fucking lot bigger than netflix. Cable is just some third party deciding what you get to watch.
Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable ... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.
Yeah but thats what the rest of the Internet is for.
I don't think the comparison should be Netflix vs cable. In the case of cable, its just the medium and the content is on top. In the case of Netflix its just the content, not the medium that carries it. What they should have done is compare cable vs internet ie Netflix plus youtube plus everything else.
Neilson samples enough people to be statistically relevant, plus they have data from your decoder/box.
I've never been sampled in my entire lifetime, which is pretty long now, so I don't think it can be statistically relevant!