Um, the "shill for money" program got busted, so don't wait by your mailbox for your $2500.
Yes. The American Egg Board is an FDA-established entity specifically to market an agricultural commodity to consumers. It's intentionally a joint effort between the industry and the agency, so bias is inevitable. It's advertising.
A lot of the sturm und drang on this page, and in the media, is the unfairness of it, but honestly, "unfair" is to be expected from advertising.
Real opprobrium is called for, though, because this attack marketing campaign appears to violate the actual regulations with respect AEB advertising:
(e) No advertising or promotion programs shall use false or unwarranted claims or make any reference to private brand names of eggs, egg products, spent fowl, and products of spent fowl or use unfair or deceptive acts or practices with respect to quality, value, or use of any competing product.
Now, lawyers could make shedloads of money arguing about the legal boundaries of "unfair or deceptive acts", but I suspect that if you take the AEB's acts to a judge (assuming you find one who hadn't already been bought out by the industry), he would assess that the attack marketing and astroturfing would qualify. Certainly, with all the publicity, the bureaucrats responsible for administering the government part of the program (and enforcing the rules) would be encouraged to see it that way. (Although bureaucrats are also known for occasionally doubling down on stupid and digging in. At least, until the lawsuit, after which the "no fault admitted" settlement puts the entire issue to bed.)
"tl;dr:" The point that the AEB attack campaign violates the intent of the controlling regulation is supportable, and is the legal sticking point in play. The AEB attack campaign is also unethical, but then again ethics is what makes loser business lose. Winner businesses don't let themselves be burdened by anything that doesn't have an explicit and costly punishment for violating.
Yes, this is the answer. If commodity Wifi routers become lock boxes, make non-commodity non-firmware Wifi routers. The more you tighten your grip, FCC, the more general-purpose computing systems will slip through your fingers.
The answer is for anything on the Internet to be protected, and if it can't be protected it should not be on the Internet.
That's fine and good in principle. The public health equivalent would be that "anything in public is vaccinated, and if it's not vaccinated it should not be out in public."
Until you get the anti-vaxx blowback, the hysterical screaming, authorities caving in.. and then the next sweeping pandemic.
The internet is becoming the next public forum, and inevitably public hygiene debates will begin to apply to it.
Frankly, I miss the old internet the way that ranchers missed the unfenced range back in the mid-late 19th Century, before the coming of all the farmers and farm towns. The lack of "civilization" wasn't so bad when it was so sparse, and everyone had to know what they were doing to just get by. And yet, we still had the occasional pandemic.
That's why you need to employ a competent IT person who can say "I can buy a hard drive from Amazon that's exactly the same as the one you'll get from HP, but we'll pay a lot less".
And then the supply-chain bureaucrats say "you won't be installing anything in City-owned IT assets unless it was bought through the supply chain organization, and you'll be terminated with cause if you try."
What, do you really think the bureaucrats would actually allow you to circumvent them? The essence of being the middleman is making the man in the middle indispensable, by force if necessary.
What fantasy world do you live in? Here in Reality World, Slashdot editors do nothing more ambitious than parrotting TFA, unless they go to the extra trouble of making the summary worse than TFA (misleading, more clickbaity, etc.)
More to the point, tell me how to get to that fantasy world. It sounds a lot better than this one.:(
The difference between just and unjust is the difference between easy and feasible.
A lawful search is every bit as feasible as an unlawful one; the difference is the miniscule administrative impediment of securing a search warrant.
Surveillance, even in a nominally public setting, is unjust without cause. Pervasive surveillance is unjust specifically because it's done so without cause or suspicion (other than the despot's constant suspicion of everyone).
Your edit makes the market-bot's statement more objectively true, but from the company's perspective, the customer's number one problem is that they haven't given the company enough money yet.
They're just helping their unfortunate customers with their money-infestation problem.
"We'll just take that nasty revenue off your hands."
However, if I were to buy a Samsung directly from the manufacturer and then use it with a carrier, I'm not beholden to the carrier for updates, right? Since it's not a carrier-branded phone, I can just get updates over any valid internet connection, right?
I did forget about the possibility of BYOD, but as far as I know the big carriers get really passive-aggressive about putting your device on their network. I guess if you contract with an MVNO, or sign up for their poorly-publicized BYOD programs, they may not be as bad. And then, possibly, the manufacturer can update without interference from the carrier.
But I suspect that BYOD phones on wireless networks is a vanishingly small minority compared to the far more typical "go to carrier, buy contract and (locked-in) phone at the same time" scenario.
The problem has never really been Android's willingness to correct and publish security-related patches; the problem is that the carriers control OTA and therefore limit OTA update support for phones that are fairly new. According to the carrier, if you want a secure phone, you'll just have to buy a new one from them.
Fourth: find out how to wire up brains. A brain is much smaller than a human, and you dont need manual user interfaces, or things like maintaining cabin pressure.
"Brain and brain! What is BRAIN? It is Controller, is it not?"
Slashdot Mirror
"Engineering while Muslim".
Unless the Monolith implodes the planet into an artificial star.
Um, the "shill for money" program got busted, so don't wait by your mailbox for your $2500.
Yes. The American Egg Board is an FDA-established entity specifically to market an agricultural commodity to consumers. It's intentionally a joint effort between the industry and the agency, so bias is inevitable. It's advertising.
A lot of the sturm und drang on this page, and in the media, is the unfairness of it, but honestly, "unfair" is to be expected from advertising.
Real opprobrium is called for, though, because this attack marketing campaign appears to violate the actual regulations with respect AEB advertising:
(2015 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter XI, Part 1250, Section 1250.341(e); emphasis added)
Now, lawyers could make shedloads of money arguing about the legal boundaries of "unfair or deceptive acts", but I suspect that if you take the AEB's acts to a judge (assuming you find one who hadn't already been bought out by the industry), he would assess that the attack marketing and astroturfing would qualify. Certainly, with all the publicity, the bureaucrats responsible for administering the government part of the program (and enforcing the rules) would be encouraged to see it that way. (Although bureaucrats are also known for occasionally doubling down on stupid and digging in. At least, until the lawsuit, after which the "no fault admitted" settlement puts the entire issue to bed.)
"tl;dr:" The point that the AEB attack campaign violates the intent of the controlling regulation is supportable, and is the legal sticking point in play. The AEB attack campaign is also unethical, but then again ethics is what makes loser business lose. Winner businesses don't let themselves be burdened by anything that doesn't have an explicit and costly punishment for violating.
Ending is better than mending. The more stitches, the less riches.
Now for my mid-morning soma break.
Particularly Slashdot's continuing effort to rebrand itself as something (anything) different from "News for nerds, stuff that matters."
Because really. Google redid their marketing? GASP.
I'm facepalming and eyerolling here, Slashdot. Well done.
I wonder what Reddit says about all of this.
Dammit. No mod points.
Yes, this is the answer. If commodity Wifi routers become lock boxes, make non-commodity non-firmware Wifi routers. The more you tighten your grip, FCC, the more general-purpose computing systems will slip through your fingers.
Heh. How many times did I hand-edit win.ini?
That's why /etc in unix and linux made sense to me later. Configuration controls are meant to be human-readable and human editable.
I might be tempted into splurging and finding out if Top Ramen is any better than regular Ramen though.
You could pay to have that looked into.
Which Ramen?
Top. Ramen.
They don't have an "lorem ipsum" sample on their webpage.
:)
Just kidding. It looks very nice for console use. I will probably try it out.
The answer is for anything on the Internet to be protected, and if it can't be protected it should not be on the Internet.
That's fine and good in principle. The public health equivalent would be that "anything in public is vaccinated, and if it's not vaccinated it should not be out in public."
Until you get the anti-vaxx blowback, the hysterical screaming, authorities caving in.. and then the next sweeping pandemic.
The internet is becoming the next public forum, and inevitably public hygiene debates will begin to apply to it.
Frankly, I miss the old internet the way that ranchers missed the unfenced range back in the mid-late 19th Century, before the coming of all the farmers and farm towns. The lack of "civilization" wasn't so bad when it was so sparse, and everyone had to know what they were doing to just get by. And yet, we still had the occasional pandemic.
"Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
when someone else does it.
When I do it, it's ok, because I have good reasons and it's really important.
In other news, surveys have uncovered that laws only apply to the other guy.
That's why you need to employ a competent IT person who can say "I can buy a hard drive from Amazon that's exactly the same as the one you'll get from HP, but we'll pay a lot less".
And then the supply-chain bureaucrats say "you won't be installing anything in City-owned IT assets unless it was bought through the supply chain organization, and you'll be terminated with cause if you try."
What, do you really think the bureaucrats would actually allow you to circumvent them? The essence of being the middleman is making the man in the middle indispensable, by force if necessary.
I dunno, I think the engineer should be proud.
The design accommodates all use cases, including an idiot doing an idiotic thing to accomplish idiotic results.
Mission accomplished! The ultimate in usability: our design doesn't stop you from doing ANYTHING you want to do!
Not sure if trolling or just PHB...
What fantasy world do you live in? Here in Reality World, Slashdot editors do nothing more ambitious than parrotting TFA, unless they go to the extra trouble of making the summary worse than TFA (misleading, more clickbaity, etc.)
More to the point, tell me how to get to that fantasy world. It sounds a lot better than this one. :(
The difference between just and unjust is the difference between easy and feasible.
A lawful search is every bit as feasible as an unlawful one; the difference is the miniscule administrative impediment of securing a search warrant.
Surveillance, even in a nominally public setting, is unjust without cause. Pervasive surveillance is unjust specifically because it's done so without cause or suspicion (other than the despot's constant suspicion of everyone).
Your edit makes the market-bot's statement more objectively true, but from the company's perspective, the customer's number one problem is that they haven't given the company enough money yet.
They're just helping their unfortunate customers with their money-infestation problem.
"We'll just take that nasty revenue off your hands."
No thanks, we don't want our games designed by PHB's. Go back to your own job of creating... uhm... what do PHB's actually create?
Accounting irregularities, mostly.
However, if I were to buy a Samsung directly from the manufacturer and then use it with a carrier, I'm not beholden to the carrier for updates, right? Since it's not a carrier-branded phone, I can just get updates over any valid internet connection, right?
I did forget about the possibility of BYOD, but as far as I know the big carriers get really passive-aggressive about putting your device on their network. I guess if you contract with an MVNO, or sign up for their poorly-publicized BYOD programs, they may not be as bad. And then, possibly, the manufacturer can update without interference from the carrier.
But I suspect that BYOD phones on wireless networks is a vanishingly small minority compared to the far more typical "go to carrier, buy contract and (locked-in) phone at the same time" scenario.
Came here to say this.
The problem has never really been Android's willingness to correct and publish security-related patches; the problem is that the carriers control OTA and therefore limit OTA update support for phones that are fairly new. According to the carrier, if you want a secure phone, you'll just have to buy a new one from them.
It's a problem not restricted to animal husbandry.
Doesn't matter.
Buy one ink bottle. Use it. Keep the bottle.
Cut the bottle off somewhere above the pentalobe nozzle tip and use it as a funnel for off-brand ink you buy in liter bottles.
There is no ???. Just PROFIT!
Or maybe the Futurama meme version.
Fourth: find out how to wire up brains. A brain is much smaller than a human, and you dont need manual user interfaces, or things like maintaining cabin pressure.
"Brain and brain! What is BRAIN? It is Controller, is it not?"