Deal with the fact that with all the spy ware and things like flame going on this is what business must do to protect themselves. Do you banking/medical correspondence/etc at home.
Even if one accepts that no personal correspondence/etc. should be done at work (pretty annoying IMHO considering the long hours you will be using the work system), what about stuff which is actually needed (or very useful) to do your job, like logging onto StackExchange or MSDN? Surely it's unreasonable to expect the company to have access to all your passwords for logging on to these services? You may as well abandon HTTPS and just send everything plaintext at that rate...
What about my Gmail pasword? My StackExchange password? My MSDN password?
I have been told many times that if you send your password over the net in an unencrypted form (unencrypted in this case for the IT department to read), you kind of deserve what you get if someone else uses it to hack into your account(s). Do you think, then, that employees should just never log in to anything with any password via your network? What if they use such sites to help them with their work?
at the end of the day, if you have nothing to hide because you are doing your job, whats the big deal?
But I do have things to hide - my passwords. I might want to log into eg. StackExchange to ask a question related to my job. I refuse to login via OpenID if my HTTPS is being snooped on and my passwords revealed. Is this not a major problem?
Except that companies enforcing policies like this are almost guaranteed to lock down their operating systems, have the latest patches installed, and of course run a virus scanner on each machine. Surely you don't need to ALSO scan all the HTTPS traffic.
until they understand we, the citizens who elected them, need to be a part of this process
We, the citizens, didn't even vote for a slightly better electoral system (AV). Why would we bother to be part of consultation processes? (disclaimer: I'm one of the 1/3 who voted Yes.)
"If you have nothing to hide, then why complain?" - That's what they said when I told them I refused to open my car for the police. They'll probably say the same when I say the police should not be recording our websurfing.
And they'll probably say the same thing when the police insist on a camera in their bedroom to monitor them and their girl/boyfriend having sex. Got to make sure a child isn't involved, after all.
There is some hope. There was a bit on the radio today about a company offering free wifi in London, and when they interviewed a few potential users all of them asked what the company was getting out of it and what personal data they wanted. A couple mentioned spying on users too. It seems that a lot of young people are at least aware of privacy issues.
That would be Virgin Media snooping on people's web browsing on that Wifi. The funny thing about the UK is that people seem to have a problem with private companies snooping on them (ISPs, Google, etc.) and there is a lot of opposition to it, but when the government want to invade privacy, people don't mind. Why is this? My suspicion is that the BBC is the problem - they traditionally have a trust that the government "won't abuse its powers" and so their reporting on government intrustions of privacy is weak or nonexistent, but then I'm quite anti-BBC in general so many I'm overdoing that angle.
If only PPUK weren't run by a bunch of rude, arrogant pricks (as well as having a freaking ugly white-on-cyan logo), I might be prepared to vote for or promote them. Shame, that. I support the Pirate Party movement in general, though.
none of the population (many of who are convinced by "won't somebody please think of the children?") actually seem to give a damn.
I give a damn and I'm British. It does make one wonder what we bothered to fight the Communists for. All the stuff they did seems to be perfectly acceptable to the baby boomers in this country as long as you do it under the banner of "fighting crime/terrorism". Maybe people just didn't want to learn Russian.
It seems to me that the obvious long-term solution to this problem is to create lobby groups that are diametrically opposed to these IP lobby groups. The IP lobby groups aren't going away, so we need more ALCUs in this world to defend civil liberties, privacy, and advocate massive copyright reform.
Generally Protestants believe that children are ignorant of good and evil and therefore get an automatic pass if they die.
Then why don't we see these groups campaigning for aborting every single foetus, or at least killing children at birth? After all, letting them grow up would be (in their worldview) risking them hearing about god and rejecting him. Kill em early and they get a ticket to heaven. What's denying them a few decades of life on Earth compared to an eternity in heaven?
If you like it or not, the problem with cookies is something that can only be solved by law.
IIF you consider it a big enough problem to need legal recourse.
Almost any site with advertising gives you a tracking cookie, per advertisement, so no browser will ask people to accept cookies by default as people will be utterly confused. And because any browser accepts them by default, sites can just add tracking cookies without many people complaining. So no browser can switch to "ask-before-request" as too many sites use them....
I don't agree. Ask-before-request could work fine, and if people got tired of it they could select to "always accept cookies"; in practice, if websites everywhere start asking permission to store cookies, people are going to be getting this kind of constant prompting anyway. Whatsmore, browsers could make the problem much easier by grouping together domains/IPs associated with advertising (and maybe a few other categories like online shopping, etc.), and provide a dialog to the user asking whether they wanted to accept "advertising cookies" or "online shopping cookies" or whatever. This wouldn't require an individual per-IP/domain approval/rejection.
But if one considers a right for privacy, regulation is the only solution in this case.
No, not really. By using a browser that automatically accepts cookies, you are implicitly giving away your privacy not to be tracked by cookies. Even if regulation is a good idea, I don't see why they regulated the WEBSITES; they should have regulated the BROWSERS and require that they provide a better interface for cookie management. That way you're dealing with a handful of organizations that have to comply with a law, and not millions of websites. Regulating the websites is fucking insane and it won't be enforcable.
That thing that requires one to connect to the internet to play a game that has no internet requirement for play? Oh yeah. Fuck Steam. Fuck the concept.
But in terms of what it does for the users of linux? Its a great thing. Fedora will "just boot" in secure boot mode. Users don't have to disable secure boot to use linux, which is a good thing.
It's a good thing for Fedora. Is it a good thing for the majority of Linux users who use other distros?
Yes, but these compatibility lists are going to be telling you whether this is a "PC" (general purpose computing device that can run any code) or a "pseudo-PC" (computing device that is locked into running only certain code). We have to avoid pseudo-PCs, and encourage everyone else to do likewise.
Slashdot Mirror
Deal with the fact that with all the spy ware and things like flame going on this is what business must do to protect themselves. Do you banking/medical correspondence/etc at home.
Even if one accepts that no personal correspondence/etc. should be done at work (pretty annoying IMHO considering the long hours you will be using the work system), what about stuff which is actually needed (or very useful) to do your job, like logging onto StackExchange or MSDN? Surely it's unreasonable to expect the company to have access to all your passwords for logging on to these services? You may as well abandon HTTPS and just send everything plaintext at that rate...
But your Gmail is fair game.
What about my Gmail pasword? My StackExchange password? My MSDN password?
I have been told many times that if you send your password over the net in an unencrypted form (unencrypted in this case for the IT department to read), you kind of deserve what you get if someone else uses it to hack into your account(s). Do you think, then, that employees should just never log in to anything with any password via your network? What if they use such sites to help them with their work?
at the end of the day, if you have nothing to hide because you are doing your job, whats the big deal?
But I do have things to hide - my passwords. I might want to log into eg. StackExchange to ask a question related to my job. I refuse to login via OpenID if my HTTPS is being snooped on and my passwords revealed. Is this not a major problem?
Except that companies enforcing policies like this are almost guaranteed to lock down their operating systems, have the latest patches installed, and of course run a virus scanner on each machine. Surely you don't need to ALSO scan all the HTTPS traffic.
Jokes aside, Islam (Ethiopia has 3 times more Muslims than in 100% Muslim Somalia) prohibits prying and spying on civilians
In theory, so does the US Constitution.
until they understand we, the citizens who elected them, need to be a part of this process
We, the citizens, didn't even vote for a slightly better electoral system (AV). Why would we bother to be part of consultation processes? (disclaimer: I'm one of the 1/3 who voted Yes.)
"If you have nothing to hide, then why complain?" - That's what they said when I told them I refused to open my car for the police. They'll probably say the same when I say the police should not be recording our websurfing.
And they'll probably say the same thing when the police insist on a camera in their bedroom to monitor them and their girl/boyfriend having sex. Got to make sure a child isn't involved, after all.
Unless "Oxford and Cambridge" really are meant to go together...
There is some hope. There was a bit on the radio today about a company offering free wifi in London, and when they interviewed a few potential users all of them asked what the company was getting out of it and what personal data they wanted. A couple mentioned spying on users too. It seems that a lot of young people are at least aware of privacy issues.
That would be Virgin Media snooping on people's web browsing on that Wifi. The funny thing about the UK is that people seem to have a problem with private companies snooping on them (ISPs, Google, etc.) and there is a lot of opposition to it, but when the government want to invade privacy, people don't mind. Why is this? My suspicion is that the BBC is the problem - they traditionally have a trust that the government "won't abuse its powers" and so their reporting on government intrustions of privacy is weak or nonexistent, but then I'm quite anti-BBC in general so many I'm overdoing that angle.
If only PPUK weren't run by a bunch of rude, arrogant pricks (as well as having a freaking ugly white-on-cyan logo), I might be prepared to vote for or promote them. Shame, that. I support the Pirate Party movement in general, though.
none of the population (many of who are convinced by "won't somebody please think of the children?") actually seem to give a damn.
I give a damn and I'm British. It does make one wonder what we bothered to fight the Communists for. All the stuff they did seems to be perfectly acceptable to the baby boomers in this country as long as you do it under the banner of "fighting crime/terrorism". Maybe people just didn't want to learn Russian.
I take issue with that campaign about bonobos being the most intelligent ape. Humans deserve at least an honourable mention.
It's amazing how deaf companies are to the idea of lowering price to reach a larger market.
Unfortunately, they can't afford the hearing aids to rectify this.
It seems to me that the obvious long-term solution to this problem is to create lobby groups that are diametrically opposed to these IP lobby groups. The IP lobby groups aren't going away, so we need more ALCUs in this world to defend civil liberties, privacy, and advocate massive copyright reform.
Other than the Oracle-owned btrfs, what ZFS alternatives are available and ready for use today?
ext4?
Generally Protestants believe that children are ignorant of good and evil and therefore get an automatic pass if they die.
Then why don't we see these groups campaigning for aborting every single foetus, or at least killing children at birth? After all, letting them grow up would be (in their worldview) risking them hearing about god and rejecting him. Kill em early and they get a ticket to heaven. What's denying them a few decades of life on Earth compared to an eternity in heaven?
English uses a comma to separate. We're speaking English. We should use a comma. QED.
Or do you think it'd be fine to start using French guillemets for quotes too?
There's Washington DC. They have some of the toughest gun laws in the US, yet also one of the highest violent crime and murder rates.
Because it's extremely difficult to smuggle a gun in from one of the other 49 states, many of which will give a gun to just about anyone.
Hell, with the new stand-your-ground laws, those WITHOUT guns tend to have fewer rights in practice.
If you like it or not, the problem with cookies is something that can only be solved by law.
IIF you consider it a big enough problem to need legal recourse.
Almost any site with advertising gives you a tracking cookie, per advertisement, so no browser will ask people to accept cookies by default as people will be utterly confused. And because any browser accepts them by default, sites can just add tracking cookies without many people complaining. So no browser can switch to "ask-before-request" as too many sites use them....
I don't agree. Ask-before-request could work fine, and if people got tired of it they could select to "always accept cookies"; in practice, if websites everywhere start asking permission to store cookies, people are going to be getting this kind of constant prompting anyway. Whatsmore, browsers could make the problem much easier by grouping together domains/IPs associated with advertising (and maybe a few other categories like online shopping, etc.), and provide a dialog to the user asking whether they wanted to accept "advertising cookies" or "online shopping cookies" or whatever. This wouldn't require an individual per-IP/domain approval/rejection.
But if one considers a right for privacy, regulation is the only solution in this case.
No, not really. By using a browser that automatically accepts cookies, you are implicitly giving away your privacy not to be tracked by cookies. Even if regulation is a good idea, I don't see why they regulated the WEBSITES; they should have regulated the BROWSERS and require that they provide a better interface for cookie management. That way you're dealing with a handful of organizations that have to comply with a law, and not millions of websites. Regulating the websites is fucking insane and it won't be enforcable.
That thing that requires one to connect to the internet to play a game that has no internet requirement for play? Oh yeah. Fuck Steam. Fuck the concept.
But in terms of what it does for the users of linux? Its a great thing. Fedora will "just boot" in secure boot mode. Users don't have to disable secure boot to use linux, which is a good thing.
It's a good thing for Fedora. Is it a good thing for the majority of Linux users who use other distros?
Yes, but these compatibility lists are going to be telling you whether this is a "PC" (general purpose computing device that can run any code) or a "pseudo-PC" (computing device that is locked into running only certain code). We have to avoid pseudo-PCs, and encourage everyone else to do likewise.
Actually that would be @giant_list_of_random_URLs :-)
Why is G+ a massive flop? I use it, screw Facebook.
I sold her a bottle of "Bug Off" - anti-static spay for his monitor! ... :-)
Was his monitor at risk of getting pregnant?