Maybe you purchased it anonymously. When you turned it on and first used it, you initiated data for a profile. Unless you used the phone at random locations, not the residence where you live, then there's no geolocation data. Instead, maybe a camera perched up on a building saw you. That in turn, was cross-matched with other information about you, like when you used your debit card across the street a few minutes later.
What part of lack of privacy didn't you understand?
Once again, the tendency is to cram a larger amount of information because a display has the capacity to do so.
The size of the type becomes eventually unusable.
I see nice 32-38" very high res displays that are clearly untenable. Yes, sometimes there are wonderful uses.
Other times, the fonts get smaller and smaller until they're impossible. It's like people defending watching movies on smartphones. Mark me troll, or think for a minute about what display technology has really become: a slave to bad UIs.
which in turn is an excuse to cram more stuff into what turn out to be smaller areas. But it doesn't matter. My OP is now flamebait because people believe you need unbelievable amounts of concurrent information exposed at once, instead of cumulatively.
So people put in tiny fonts and wedge so much stuff onto their screens that they're a graveyard of disinformation.
If you have no web access, you've stanched the majority of infection and cracking sources. In terms of "unbreachable", I'll cite the airgap and earthed-Faraday cage above. Nothing is foolproof, as fools are so ingenious.
NAT takes care of many problems, e.g. direct probes and their consequences. Many firewalls perform NAT, and it's needed for stateful inspection.
Only a handful of systems are uncrackable. And that's for today.
The only secure perimeter is the air gap, and that inside a well-grounded Faraday cage.
I don't believe you and your citation of a secure perimeter. It's likely highly infected. Firewalls do often include NAT, so that they can watch statefull packet exchange. But I get the feeling you're new at this, so I'll leave your observations alone.
People who brag about these things, as in never's-been-breached, are usually fools.
Secure perimeters are illusions. Every machine needs its own defense. Firewalls are good for NAT, which foils a few, and stateful inspection, which fools a few more. Otherwise, internal firewalling and boundary checks are the only answer, coupled to download security hashing checks-- and those get bitten, too.
Belief in firewalls and secure perimeters are the reason that some 30% of all machines in a domain are bot'd somehow..... along with Checkpoint, Norton, Microsoft, and so on. A CCIE or CCSP gives you someone that can help, but there's no guarantee that someone won't click on a site that will give your browsers a headache, then the infection, and so on.
The MuSystems guys can tell you about fuzzing attacks that will leave most equipment in a state of mush. With enough pounding, you can break about anything. Sorry to be dour, but you have to use best practices, and protect each indivdual device, not just the perimeter.
Ok. Pizza. It's addicting. Did you know that tomatoes have nicotine in them? I like pizza as a nicotine delivery system. And no one is hurt by the cheese. I hope.
I get: joining the club and whiskey and smoke. Some people like booze and smoking concurrently... like coffee and a cigarette.
I don't get 'A cigar a month, sometimes a pipe if...." and standing outside.
Logic examination seems to indicate that you have only a couple of visits to the bar per month. But this drove you nuts? Is random smoking that important?
You still distract the argument. ISPs provide pipes. Now they're (actually continuing to be) miffed because they can't troll the content.
But the EU ISPs will be no different than US ISPs, who no longer have net neutrality to worry about.
ISP clients want circuits, not toll gates with snorting trolls deciding what we're going to consume based on *their* product mix.
This is a battle to take to the wall. Circuit providers don't get ad revenues unless WE choose the content/services they provide. Competing with the trolls will be tough-- they have a monopolistic mind set and greed on their side.
The logs aren't very useful, even when they trap things. Unsupported CPUs may also have unsupported or doctored chipsets. Bitching about it, 100 books or no, seems a bit silly. With fast CPUs and weird cache setups, FSB speeds approaching C, you're just going to have problems unless something's vetted.
Moaning about an engineering sample seems nihilistic to me, Windows 7 or no.
I think that there is hurt. First lack of acknowledgement itself is a hurt on the trustworthyness of the vendor. If you can't patch it yourselves, or find a way to diminish the threat represented by the problem, than you have a fiduciay and legal responsibility to your organization.
I'd send information higher in the food chain than you're dealing with. Tenacity may be necessary to get people to understand the gravity of the situation.
A shot across the bow is a bad thing, given their current position and that of people that respect FOSS. You'd think they'd have given this more thought.
Another side has lots of IP, and says, gosh, we're gonna lose $$ if you use that mainframe emulator. (opens big box of patents) Now it's time to scare you off this mission of yours. Go home.(whilst waving the IP like it's a magic sword)
Look, IBM, you can't have it both ways. Wanna be a friend? Great. Want to wave your IP portfolio like the usual corporate hoodlum/troll? We'll walk.
Figure it out. Much is riding on whether we walk away from you.... or not. Microsoft's blustering is enough..... we can put you in the same boat-- where you were, years ago.
You have a silly line of reasoning. Most people eschew the classics because they'd rather do something else. It seems as though it might be torture to learn what Blaise Pascal said, or delve into Vonnegut.
Hemmingway isn't for everyone. Nor is Dante. To blithely avoid classics as boring represents an incredibly dismissive attitude. You don't have to masochistic and expose yourself to needless pain, rather, learn something.
'Classics' are examples of many things that you can learn from. One of this is that you don't like the lesson.
Instead, you eschew the lesson, believing current media is ideal. Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to make its mistakes again.
I get sick and tired of listening to, as an example, The Beatles. Each song has been played for me about 2000 times. Yet I recognize them as classics. So is Monk, REM, Led Zep, Tupak, Prince, Kraftwerk, and a thousand others. Movies are the same ways. And once a year, I play Duke Nukem I, just to remember how fun it was, but how cheezy it is now.
Learn from the classics. That's what they're there for.
No. This isn't about religion. This is about totalitarianism and subjugation by someone that doesn't realize the ultimate dangers of both. As far left as I might be, I don't submit to those circumstances. Ever. And if you do, you will rue the very day you did, as will your great great great great grandchildren.
The market forces include Silverlight-ish stuff, Flash, open-source wannabees, Fraunhofer Institute codec creations, and there's actually a wealth of stuff.
Some of it, however, is indeed encumbered by licensing problems. It's a big deal: we don't like to pay codec royalties. We're not enamored with Microsoft's Silverlight constraints. We worry about what Oracle will do to the Java Continuum.
And so HTML 5 isn't going to be a train wreck, but there are many details to sort thru as you cite. And so it's no wonder why Adobe feels like it can slipstream just about any angle that the center of the market future turns to. Fat and happy; nothing to see here; move along.
If they don't have an opt-in, I'm sure they'll get sued.
OTOH, for those that will want to pay Verizon's usury, it's fine. Other countries have been using phone payments somewhat successfully for a long time now.
Slashdot Mirror
And she's probably registered to vote in each country. She apparently likes that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/ann-coulter-under-investi_n_165007.html
Maybe you purchased it anonymously. When you turned it on and first used it, you initiated data for a profile. Unless you used the phone at random locations, not the residence where you live, then there's no geolocation data. Instead, maybe a camera perched up on a building saw you. That in turn, was cross-matched with other information about you, like when you used your debit card across the street a few minutes later.
What part of lack of privacy didn't you understand?
Once again, the tendency is to cram a larger amount of information because a display has the capacity to do so.
The size of the type becomes eventually unusable.
I see nice 32-38" very high res displays that are clearly untenable. Yes, sometimes there are wonderful uses.
Other times, the fonts get smaller and smaller until they're impossible. It's like people defending watching movies on smartphones. Mark me troll, or think for a minute about what display technology has really become: a slave to bad UIs.
which in turn is an excuse to cram more stuff into what turn out to be smaller areas. But it doesn't matter. My OP is now flamebait because people believe you need unbelievable amounts of concurrent information exposed at once, instead of cumulatively.
So people put in tiny fonts and wedge so much stuff onto their screens that they're a graveyard of disinformation.
Yeah, that's what I want-- to read 4pt type. Pages of it. For hours. Days, maybe. With binoculars. Yeah, big binoculars.
If you have no web access, you've stanched the majority of infection and cracking sources. In terms of "unbreachable", I'll cite the airgap and earthed-Faraday cage above. Nothing is foolproof, as fools are so ingenious.
NAT takes care of many problems, e.g. direct probes and their consequences. Many firewalls perform NAT, and it's needed for stateful inspection.
Only a handful of systems are uncrackable. And that's for today.
The only secure perimeter is the air gap, and that inside a well-grounded Faraday cage.
I don't believe you and your citation of a secure perimeter. It's likely highly infected. Firewalls do often include NAT, so that they can watch statefull packet exchange. But I get the feeling you're new at this, so I'll leave your observations alone.
People who brag about these things, as in never's-been-breached, are usually fools.
Secure perimeters are illusions. Every machine needs its own defense. Firewalls are good for NAT, which foils a few, and stateful inspection, which fools a few more. Otherwise, internal firewalling and boundary checks are the only answer, coupled to download security hashing checks-- and those get bitten, too.
Belief in firewalls and secure perimeters are the reason that some 30% of all machines in a domain are bot'd somehow..... along with Checkpoint, Norton, Microsoft, and so on. A CCIE or CCSP gives you someone that can help, but there's no guarantee that someone won't click on a site that will give your browsers a headache, then the infection, and so on.
The MuSystems guys can tell you about fuzzing attacks that will leave most equipment in a state of mush. With enough pounding, you can break about anything. Sorry to be dour, but you have to use best practices, and protect each indivdual device, not just the perimeter.
Ok. Pizza. It's addicting. Did you know that tomatoes have nicotine in them? I like pizza as a nicotine delivery system. And no one is hurt by the cheese. I hope.
I sense incongruity here.
I get: joining the club and whiskey and smoke. Some people like booze and smoking concurrently... like coffee and a cigarette.
I don't get 'A cigar a month, sometimes a pipe if...." and standing outside.
Logic examination seems to indicate that you have only a couple of visits to the bar per month. But this drove you nuts? Is random smoking that important?
You still distract the argument. ISPs provide pipes. Now they're (actually continuing to be) miffed because they can't troll the content.
But the EU ISPs will be no different than US ISPs, who no longer have net neutrality to worry about.
ISP clients want circuits, not toll gates with snorting trolls deciding what we're going to consume based on *their* product mix.
This is a battle to take to the wall. Circuit providers don't get ad revenues unless WE choose the content/services they provide. Competing with the trolls will be tough-- they have a monopolistic mind set and greed on their side.
The logs aren't very useful, even when they trap things. Unsupported CPUs may also have unsupported or doctored chipsets. Bitching about it, 100 books or no, seems a bit silly. With fast CPUs and weird cache setups, FSB speeds approaching C, you're just going to have problems unless something's vetted.
Moaning about an engineering sample seems nihilistic to me, Windows 7 or no.
I think that there is hurt. First lack of acknowledgement itself is a hurt on the trustworthyness of the vendor. If you can't patch it yourselves, or find a way to diminish the threat represented by the problem, than you have a fiduciay and legal responsibility to your organization.
I'd send information higher in the food chain than you're dealing with. Tenacity may be necessary to get people to understand the gravity of the situation.
You didn't notice we've been watching you?
java -start -mykeylogger_to_ru -get_passwords_for_everything & -send_to_nsa_listening_post
wasn't that link you clicked?
A shot across the bow is a bad thing, given their current position and that of people that respect FOSS. You'd think they'd have given this more thought.
It's like multiple personalities.
One side drives a lot of open source projects.
Another side has lots of IP, and says, gosh, we're gonna lose $$ if you use that mainframe emulator. (opens big box of patents) Now it's time to scare you off this mission of yours. Go home.(whilst waving the IP like it's a magic sword)
Look, IBM, you can't have it both ways. Wanna be a friend? Great. Want to wave your IP portfolio like the usual corporate hoodlum/troll? We'll walk.
Figure it out. Much is riding on whether we walk away from you.... or not. Microsoft's blustering is enough..... we can put you in the same boat-- where you were, years ago.
Not my cup of tea.... but 1984 was fun, if only to have also lived through it, too.
But I can't speak to your teacher, or how the material was treated. Too bad you didn't enjoy them. There are better, IMHO.
You have a silly line of reasoning. Most people eschew the classics because they'd rather do something else. It seems as though it might be torture to learn what Blaise Pascal said, or delve into Vonnegut.
Hemmingway isn't for everyone. Nor is Dante. To blithely avoid classics as boring represents an incredibly dismissive attitude. You don't have to masochistic and expose yourself to needless pain, rather, learn something.
Your superficiality knows no bounds.
'Classics' are examples of many things that you can learn from. One of this is that you don't like the lesson.
Instead, you eschew the lesson, believing current media is ideal. Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to make its mistakes again.
I get sick and tired of listening to, as an example, The Beatles. Each song has been played for me about 2000 times. Yet I recognize them as classics. So is Monk, REM, Led Zep, Tupak, Prince, Kraftwerk, and a thousand others. Movies are the same ways. And once a year, I play Duke Nukem I, just to remember how fun it was, but how cheezy it is now.
Learn from the classics. That's what they're there for.
No. This isn't about religion. This is about totalitarianism and subjugation by someone that doesn't realize the ultimate dangers of both. As far left as I might be, I don't submit to those circumstances. Ever. And if you do, you will rue the very day you did, as will your great great great great grandchildren.
Your 'uneducated masses' get a say. Even we, the educated masses, do not submit. You must be new here.
Well, there you go again.
The market forces include Silverlight-ish stuff, Flash, open-source wannabees, Fraunhofer Institute codec creations, and there's actually a wealth of stuff.
Some of it, however, is indeed encumbered by licensing problems. It's a big deal: we don't like to pay codec royalties. We're not enamored with Microsoft's Silverlight constraints. We worry about what Oracle will do to the Java Continuum.
And so HTML 5 isn't going to be a train wreck, but there are many details to sort thru as you cite. And so it's no wonder why Adobe feels like it can slipstream just about any angle that the center of the market future turns to. Fat and happy; nothing to see here; move along.
Sustaining six connections per minute is all a C64 can do. No wonder it's slashdotted.
If they don't have an opt-in, I'm sure they'll get sued.
OTOH, for those that will want to pay Verizon's usury, it's fine. Other countries have been using phone payments somewhat successfully for a long time now.
Your posting makes not a bit of sense. Could you qualify that? In English? Please?