>"This ransomware here will encrypt attached devices - such as external usb drives - and any network share you may have access to. So even if you have backups, you can still get burned."
That's not a real backup. That is just a online copy. A real backup is made to a device which is then stored separate from the computer. It protects from malware, from theft, fire, disaster, etc.
>"...a teacher would literally read from a book so students could copy it all down...You probably pictured someone droning on and on in front of a chalkboard or PowerPoint presentation. No way that is more engaging or interesting than..."
When I taught college classes (part-time) I certainly didn't stand there and drone on for students to copy down notes. Neither did many of MY teachers. That is why they have textbooks and handouts. I was there to INTERACT with the students. I asked and answered questions, made them think, created teams for focused discussion or debate, played "what if" games, had people come up and offer ideas. THAT should be the modern teaching method- interaction. So you certainly should lump all "modern teaching" with standing at a board and droning on and on.
Now I will say one reason I stopped teaching was when the dean gave me a set of pre-made handouts and tests and told me they wanted everyone to teach by using/reading slideshows. I promptly told him "You don't need an instructor experienced in the subject matter/field to teach that way- most students won't learn and I am not needed" and they pushed the issue and I resigned at the end of the semester.
>"The President is irrelevant as to what laws are passed. Now if you said he didn't veto a bill or his veto was overruled, then it would have been a relevant comment."
The fact that it was passed under a President means it wasn't vetoed. And that in turn means the President signed it into law (and did participate/approve in the process by not vetoing). So you are wrong, the President certainly is very relevant as to what laws are passed, because they cannot be passed if they are vetoed (unless overridden by huge majority, which wasn't necessary).
They are anti-free market because they destroy choice and freedom for new companies to compete in the market. Yes, they are inevitable because we don't have the theoretical "perfect consumer" (an economics term), which is why anti-trust measures are necessary. So I guess it is which "freedom" that matters- the consumer or the company.
>"Answer: there's a Republican in the Whitehouse. Seriously, elections have consequences
Cable monopolies have been around for eons and they were just as strong under the Dems and would have retained that strength under Hillary.. Funny how so many people want to blame all these long-standing issues on recent politics.
Monopolies are anti-free market. It is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Oh, by the way, the Sherman Antitust Act was passed under a Republican president...
No it wouldn't have. Cable monopolies have been around for eons and they were just as strong under the Dems and would have retained that strength under Hillary.. Funny how so many people want to blame all these long-standing issues on recent politics.
Monopolies are anti-free market. It is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Oh, by the way, the Sherman Antitust Act was passed under a Republican president.
>"If this is what works best for them and their shareholders, then it is what works best for customers. After all, it's not like you NEED to use their services."
I don't know about you, but I *need* internet service just like I need electricity, water, sewer, and phone services.
Almost all cable companies are monopolies in their respective areas... which is already extremely anti-competitive. Don't like your cable company's pricing, service, or policies? Well too F***ing bad! Your choice is pretty much zip (most areas don't have any other reasonable broadband option, and we are not just talking rural).
The last thing on earth consumers want or need is more "bundling" and "introductory pricing" and cross-market gobbling.
>"Were you one of the 3.5 million customers who purchased an Apple Watch in the first quarter of 2017?"
Uh, nope. Moto 360, and now Moto 360.2. Round like a nice watch should be, and always-on display like a watch should be! Oh, and works with ALL phones. Plus it cost less, has a better band, and has been out longer.
And for years I get stopped all the time with questions about how something some nice isn't Apple .
>"Good thing most of the technology doesn't exist, is poorly conceived to the point of impossibility [...] but good luck teaching it the uh specific prejudices about those crimes you don't know you expect it to have."
While this is true NOW, the real issue is that if the data is being stored, it can be analyzed with improved systems in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, whatever. This is one of the main problems with the current mentality of just capturing everything and saving it. Storage systems get cheaper and cheaper and bigger and bigger. At some point, that data can be horribly abused.
For an example, look at fingerprints. What was nearly impossible 30 years ago is now trivial. If your fingerprints are on record for ANY reason, you are being searched hundreds of times a day or more! Pretty much every time they run prints, they just sweep across the whole integrated database. This is going to start with DNA next...
>"Why should the public be worried about the privacy & freedom of rapists, robbers and the like?"
Do you think these systems will be recording only rapists, robbers and the like? I suspect that at 90+% of the police interaction with the public results in no ticket, 98+% results in no arrest, and 99.5% in no charges (yep, I made up those numbers, but don't they sound reasonable?). There are a lot of innocent, normal people that will be caught up in this new web of surveillance. I don't think the bodycams are going to just erase everything that didn't result in a negative or law-breaking interaction. And even if that is what was claimed, how would we really know it is true?
>"But looking to the past is just the beginning: Taser is betting that its artificial intelligence tools might be useful not just to determine what happened, but to anticipate what might happen in the future."
Yep. And by tying in facial recognition and other AI, it will be possible to make all kinda of inferences and connections and store all kinds of data about what normal citizens are doing. Things that might have nothing to do with the reason they were interacting with the police. Tracking where people are/go, who they associate with, what they are wearing, what they might be carrying with them, what was in their vehicle, what was written on their hat, etc. Lots of possibilities that can be great for crime fighting and a nightmare for privacy and freedom...
And before someone says "but you have no expectation of privacy in public", I will counter with "but at no time in history was it possible to have perfect video and audio recollection of everything that is happening that could be stored indefinitely, shared with anyone, and analyzed and interpreted in a zillion ways."
>"Why do you trust open source apps? No really, do you read all the code and then compile it yourself?"
At least it is POSSIBLE. With closed source, it is absolutely impossible for the end user to know what the program is doing. It means watchdog organizations can audit it and anyone can verify it. I don't look at much of my open source code, but you can bet someone is, and all it takes is one person to blow the whistle. And someone can compile it and compare the hashsum on distributed binaries to ensure it hasn't been tampered with downstream.
>"The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth"
Actually that is not true. On most things he has done exactly what he said he was going to do. You might not like some of the things he did, but that doesn't mean he is lying or flip-flopping "about everything."
>"Also, a constitution should not be viewed as only negative, that is limiting, but also a positive law. This relates to the regulation and legislation the government should make to ensure the constitutional protections of the citizens are upheld and realized even in the contexts of the private. But that's the horrible European socialism you can't possibly have."
Indeed we are not European. The Constitution of the United States of America limits the powers of government; that it its sole purpose. All rights of the people are inherent, not granted.
Laws and policies will not stop erosion of privacy by government or big business. Why? Because they really aren't accountable to anyone, and whistle-blowers get into severe trouble.
If something CAN be done, then it is likely it WILL be done... especially if it one or more of these:
* Cheap * Easy * Important to them * Has precedence * Already being collected
It is like a microphone in a device- The way to ensure privacy isn't to list all kinds of rules and laws and disclosures, it is to put a hard switch on it so the user has the option to turn it off.
Freedom and privacy shouldn't be exclusively to trying to limit what we DO with the information once it is collected. The only real way to ensure you are not being tracked is to prevent the collection of information in the first place. The only sure way to know a license plate scanner isn't being used improperly is to not use them, or limit the scope of how they are used. The only way to know cameras aren't tracking you is to not have cameras everywhere. The only way to know people can't potentionally abuse your messaging is to have encryption that can't be broken and without back-doors.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Should You Leave Google Chrome For the Opera Browser?"
Firefox.
>"This ransomware here will encrypt attached devices - such as external usb drives - and any network share you may have access to. So even if you have backups, you can still get burned."
That's not a real backup. That is just a online copy. A real backup is made to a device which is then stored separate from the computer. It protects from malware, from theft, fire, disaster, etc.
This is why we should ever pay ransomware.
1) There is a big chance they are not going to unlock your data, anyway.
2) You don't know if they have also stolen all the data and can then do other things to harm you in other ways. Or left residuals in your computer.
3) By paying, you are a "mark" so they might go after you again.
4) Paying absolutely encourages them to continue this behavior and incentivizes others to joint them.
We need to educate everyone: Backup your data redundantly and check it regularly, and don't pay ransomware.
>"So you certainly should lump all "
Typo, I meant to say "shouldn't"
>"...a teacher would literally read from a book so students could copy it all down...You probably pictured someone droning on and on in front of a chalkboard or PowerPoint presentation. No way that is more engaging or interesting than..."
When I taught college classes (part-time) I certainly didn't stand there and drone on for students to copy down notes. Neither did many of MY teachers. That is why they have textbooks and handouts. I was there to INTERACT with the students. I asked and answered questions, made them think, created teams for focused discussion or debate, played "what if" games, had people come up and offer ideas. THAT should be the modern teaching method- interaction. So you certainly should lump all "modern teaching" with standing at a board and droning on and on.
Now I will say one reason I stopped teaching was when the dean gave me a set of pre-made handouts and tests and told me they wanted everyone to teach by using/reading slideshows. I promptly told him "You don't need an instructor experienced in the subject matter/field to teach that way- most students won't learn and I am not needed" and they pushed the issue and I resigned at the end of the semester.
>"The President is irrelevant as to what laws are passed. Now if you said he didn't veto a bill or his veto was overruled, then it would have been a relevant comment."
The fact that it was passed under a President means it wasn't vetoed. And that in turn means the President signed it into law (and did participate/approve in the process by not vetoing). So you are wrong, the President certainly is very relevant as to what laws are passed, because they cannot be passed if they are vetoed (unless overridden by huge majority, which wasn't necessary).
They are anti-free market because they destroy choice and freedom for new companies to compete in the market. Yes, they are inevitable because we don't have the theoretical "perfect consumer" (an economics term), which is why anti-trust measures are necessary. So I guess it is which "freedom" that matters- the consumer or the company.
>"President's don't pass laws. Don't feel bad for not understanding though."
That's why I said "passed under" and not "passed by". But don't feel bad for not understanding English.
>"Answer: there's a Republican in the Whitehouse. Seriously, elections have consequences
Cable monopolies have been around for eons and they were just as strong under the Dems and would have retained that strength under Hillary.. Funny how so many people want to blame all these long-standing issues on recent politics.
Monopolies are anti-free market. It is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Oh, by the way, the Sherman Antitust Act was passed under a Republican president...
>"It would have been about four months back."
No it wouldn't have. Cable monopolies have been around for eons and they were just as strong under the Dems and would have retained that strength under Hillary.. Funny how so many people want to blame all these long-standing issues on recent politics.
Monopolies are anti-free market. It is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Oh, by the way, the Sherman Antitust Act was passed under a Republican president.
>"If this is what works best for them and their shareholders, then it is what works best for customers. After all, it's not like you NEED to use their services."
I don't know about you, but I *need* internet service just like I need electricity, water, sewer, and phone services.
Almost all cable companies are monopolies in their respective areas... which is already extremely anti-competitive. Don't like your cable company's pricing, service, or policies? Well too F***ing bad! Your choice is pretty much zip (most areas don't have any other reasonable broadband option, and we are not just talking rural).
The last thing on earth consumers want or need is more "bundling" and "introductory pricing" and cross-market gobbling.
You are assuming the OP's comments were based on or motivated by race (or color or location or whatever you want), and you don't know that.
Exactly. The word is so overused and misunderstood it is losing all meaning.
He might be an idiot, but calling him a "racist" is really pushing it.
>"Were you one of the 3.5 million customers who purchased an Apple Watch in the first quarter of 2017?"
Uh, nope. Moto 360, and now Moto 360.2. Round like a nice watch should be, and always-on display like a watch should be! Oh, and works with ALL phones. Plus it cost less, has a better band, and has been out longer.
And for years I get stopped all the time with questions about how something some nice isn't Apple .
Pay streaming service that includes forced commercials. Nope! No thanks! I will stick with cable and my TiVo plus Netflix.
>"Good thing most of the technology doesn't exist, is poorly conceived to the point of impossibility [...] but good luck teaching it the uh specific prejudices about those crimes you don't know you expect it to have."
While this is true NOW, the real issue is that if the data is being stored, it can be analyzed with improved systems in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, whatever. This is one of the main problems with the current mentality of just capturing everything and saving it. Storage systems get cheaper and cheaper and bigger and bigger. At some point, that data can be horribly abused.
For an example, look at fingerprints. What was nearly impossible 30 years ago is now trivial. If your fingerprints are on record for ANY reason, you are being searched hundreds of times a day or more! Pretty much every time they run prints, they just sweep across the whole integrated database. This is going to start with DNA next...
>"Why should the public be worried about the privacy & freedom of rapists, robbers and the like?"
Do you think these systems will be recording only rapists, robbers and the like? I suspect that at 90+% of the police interaction with the public results in no ticket, 98+% results in no arrest, and 99.5% in no charges (yep, I made up those numbers, but don't they sound reasonable?). There are a lot of innocent, normal people that will be caught up in this new web of surveillance. I don't think the bodycams are going to just erase everything that didn't result in a negative or law-breaking interaction. And even if that is what was claimed, how would we really know it is true?
>"But looking to the past is just the beginning: Taser is betting that its artificial intelligence tools might be useful not just to determine what happened, but to anticipate what might happen in the future."
Yep. And by tying in facial recognition and other AI, it will be possible to make all kinda of inferences and connections and store all kinds of data about what normal citizens are doing. Things that might have nothing to do with the reason they were interacting with the police. Tracking where people are/go, who they associate with, what they are wearing, what they might be carrying with them, what was in their vehicle, what was written on their hat, etc. Lots of possibilities that can be great for crime fighting and a nightmare for privacy and freedom...
And before someone says "but you have no expectation of privacy in public", I will counter with "but at no time in history was it possible to have perfect video and audio recollection of everything that is happening that could be stored indefinitely, shared with anyone, and analyzed and interpreted in a zillion ways."
Truly a double-edged sword if ever there was one.
>"Why do you trust open source apps? No really, do you read all the code and then compile it yourself?"
At least it is POSSIBLE. With closed source, it is absolutely impossible for the end user to know what the program is doing. It means watchdog organizations can audit it and anyone can verify it. I don't look at much of my open source code, but you can bet someone is, and all it takes is one person to blow the whistle. And someone can compile it and compare the hashsum on distributed binaries to ensure it hasn't been tampered with downstream.
>"The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth"
Actually that is not true. On most things he has done exactly what he said he was going to do. You might not like some of the things he did, but that doesn't mean he is lying or flip-flopping "about everything."
Yep. And the only interference it can "see" is that of metal. And only a certain distance. And only if it is still for a long time.
>"Also, a constitution should not be viewed as only negative, that is limiting, but also a positive law. This relates to the regulation and legislation the government should make to ensure the constitutional protections of the citizens are upheld and realized even in the contexts of the private. But that's the horrible European socialism you can't possibly have."
Indeed we are not European. The Constitution of the United States of America limits the powers of government; that it its sole purpose. All rights of the people are inherent, not granted.
Laws and policies will not stop erosion of privacy by government or big business. Why? Because they really aren't accountable to anyone, and whistle-blowers get into severe trouble.
If something CAN be done, then it is likely it WILL be done... especially if it one or more of these:
* Cheap
* Easy
* Important to them
* Has precedence
* Already being collected
It is like a microphone in a device- The way to ensure privacy isn't to list all kinds of rules and laws and disclosures, it is to put a hard switch on it so the user has the option to turn it off.
Freedom and privacy shouldn't be exclusively to trying to limit what we DO with the information once it is collected. The only real way to ensure you are not being tracked is to prevent the collection of information in the first place. The only sure way to know a license plate scanner isn't being used improperly is to not use them, or limit the scope of how they are used. The only way to know cameras aren't tracking you is to not have cameras everywhere. The only way to know people can't potentionally abuse your messaging is to have encryption that can't be broken and without back-doors.