Glad I'm not the only one that does this on occasion. The unfortunate nature of Slashdot is that it is perceived that one needs to post quickly to be seen.
You repeated mostly what Charles Barkley said in an interview about a week back, but you missed his point that having served a prison term is considered "cool" and "street creds". Ironic that this article blames the problem on racism instead of reality, considering that I mentioned this same thing in a different propaganda thread this morning regarding misogyny.
Certainly racism exists, but there are much bigger issues at hand. The same people propagating the "racism" arguments happen to be the same people propagating "misogyny", and the same people promoting and glamorizing a certain lifestyle through various forms of media.
You have it wrong, this is not about legitimizing harassment of women. It's about a propaganda war which attempts to perpetuate and inflate stereotypes of the oppressed women and abusive man. A similar propaganda war has been going on attempting to propagate racial tensions, and another war for Religious tensions. I won't distract further than the mention of the latter two, but if you are truly interested there is plenty of information to find on those as well. For now, lets stick with the misogyny.
First, there is real discrimination and real pricks that truly believe they are better than women. Those people are an extreme minority, but they do exist. In order to increase tensions, those extremes are portrayed as the normal. Small examples are inflated and portrayed like "everyone does it", and fake issues get repeated until people start to believe them. You hint at one of the latter, but completely miss the mark for "why?" the fake issue is not corrected.
As an example, we are told by media that women can't get IT jobs because "misogyny". The reality is that there are countless reasons other than misogyny that women don't want to work in many IT jobs. Journalists won't talk about those other reasons, and people over time start to believe that the only reason for a lack of women in IT is discrimination. Instead of the obvious, such as demand for insanely long work hours and tedious work for little reward. Lack of career progression, since the management side of IT is a completely different degree and skill set (some people get promoted up without, but we are talking "normals" not exceptions here). Work/Personal life balance is always shifted to "work" if you want to progress in IT. And lets not forget that if you want to start a family the woman must sacrifice work life, the man has no womb so can't do that work (which is another item often portrayed as misogyny even though there is an obvious physical requirement involved).
In reality, there are trolls. They do so for various reasons, but one of the known is a desire for attention. Given that known, it should be obvious to anyone looking that all kinds of people get trolled. They are a minority, and are best dealt with by simply ignoring them when they show up. Free speech is too important to pass laws requiring identity all the time. The trade off is not worth it, and the majority would suffer. You think trolls have targets today, imagine when they can see that QQ4322 is "Rebecca Smith", because that's what identity requirements will do.
Another interesting fact is that many Trolls are bought and paid for by various people claiming to be on your side. Snowden's leaks showed that the US and UK have numerous departments using paid people who's job is FUD at all costs. It has also been leaked that certain corporations pay for trolling. Funny that of all the reports of evil trolling I have not yet seen anyone demand the identity of the paid trolls from companies and governments that are known to use them. Cui bono from that little fact is fun, especially considering that most media has the same few masters.
Comparing the prospects of a private company sending people to mars with the claim that "...at best, an amazingly hubristic fantasy: an absolute faith in the free market, in technology, in the media, in money, to be able to somehow, magically, do what thousands of highly qualified people in government agencies have so far not yet been able to do over decades of diligently trying, making slow headway through individually hard-won breakthroughs, working in relative anonymity pursuing their life’s work."
Every time NASA has tried to submit a proposal for an extended trip, whether back to the moon or to mars, they have been shut out of budget. Well, there was the one plan sent to Congress that was just a sick joke of inflated numbers, but after that there have been several very good proposals. No project has been funded, so how the hell can this person claim that Governments have tried to do this? Sorry, I don't count fighting for budget as doing any actual work, which quite frankly has been very well planned and could have been done if funding was approved.
The US seems to have been the only country with enough money to take on the challenge, and we can't do it because.. well, we'd rather spend trillions of dollars bombing brown skinned people and stirring up trouble in every other country in the world.
Eisenhower and Kennedy were correct, and we have been ignorant and complacent for far too long.
Thanks for the correction, I really need to be more aware of that homonym but don't use either mute or moot very often (IANAL where it would be somewhat common)
PGE? Enron? Do those happen to ring a bell? How about Exxon, or BP? If you still have no clue what corruption looks like in utilities you really are not trying. They already are Comcast-esque money grubbers, there is no transformation required. It's just harder to track down who actually owns power plants, water plants, sewage plants, etc...
Your last statement is that if a private company can trick you into giving them information the government should be able to just do it without the trickery? Sorry, the Government is supposed to prosecute violations of rights, not get in on the gig.
Your point is absolutely mute because this is not about net neutrality at all. Obama's statement does not do anything _for_ net neutrality, and I'll argue that it's more to ensure Government intrusion than to ensure access for everyone. Remember that as soon as it's rated as a "utility" it will have to receive more funding from tax payers for Government "monitoring" and "regulation" (read crony appointees). If you have doubts look how AT&T receives funding from tax payers to duplicate ALL traffic to various NSA facilities today.
If you want to see some of the most corrupt businesses alive today, look no further than utilities. This is nothing more than a front, primarily to stop the debate about Government intrusion but also to squeeze more money from the middle class.
I'm not sure I was not over thinking, seems like we agree on the Executive part. I just put half the blame on the share holders who put specific executives in place. Package solutions are predictable. I.E. Buy a cloud host for X dollars a month. Revenue is based on Y units of X dollars, stock holders and executives love this because they don't have to think. Even better, you plug this into a front end and no more human involvement is needed, so it's seen as pure profit. The only variable in the equation is really Y units, so it's simple. Share holders want this, so ensure a management chain that agrees with this.
Project work on the other hand is complex, and requires people in all stages. There are variables like, how do you integrate a customers database when the customer can't figure it out or provide a complete schema? The money for doing these things is much larger but share holders see this as the worst form of gambling, like putting all of your money on the table for an all or nothing bet. Instead of what it really is, which is revenue of N+Q plus the X dollars for Y units to run it. This is hard to predict, you may have bid 500,000 on a job and it ends up bringing in a cool million.
Ever see what happens to companies that make more revenue than they predict in the stock market? They are punished for it, and management gets canned for it. That is the reality that we have in the market, and have had for at least a couple decades.
IBM has a fix, but I doubt very seriously they would consider it. The same problem plaguing IBM also plagued EDS, CSC, HP, Sun, SGI, and damn this list could get really long so I'll stop.
IBM's problem is that it forgot what made it a huge company. Rather, they remembered but said "F$^& it" and went to the "Lets make as much profit as possible and who cares about the customer business model.
All of the companies above with the exception of CSC are shells of what they used to be (outside of obviously IBM). CSC is excluded past here, as they are only on the brink of catastrophe, and quite collapsing yet... but close. Companies like IBM make money by customizing services for customers, and having a reliable competent staff on hand to do just that. All of these companies laid off the people that visited sites and made shit work. IBM not only sold off their PC and Laptop businesses, but their Global Services which was the bread and butter for IBM. Project work is hard, and you can't forecast with simple algorithms. IBM started outsourced a few things overseas for the same 500.00/hr rate and cancelled everything else, laying off what.. 80,000 people from their Global Services business? (memory, I don't feel like digging at the moment). All to make some executives big fat bonus checks and stock holders happy with easy to predict revenue (even if lower). Technical people that made shit work and made customers happy were considered not just overhead, but wasteful. IBM's attitude has become "if you don't like what we give you in the box, too bad.
So there you have it, there is the fix to IBM. Get Global Services back and get technical people into customers offices to make shit work for them. IBM would have to kiss a lot of ass and probably reduce rates for a while to gain customer confidence again, but possible. It's too late for Sun, SGI, EDS, DEC, and many others. IBM is big enough to revamp. I seriously doubt they will however, because they would have to reinvest in all of the people they have shit on for about a decade. That would cost management bonuses, and the executive management in IBM today is all about the big fat bonus checks.
This company goes under and then where do you get a job in Florida for IT? Yup, California's taxes suck but at least in SV there are plenty of IT jobs (at least for now)
Most boring mix up ever, I'd fall asleep. Most drivers in SV do 10-15 _under_ the speed limit even when traffic is open, and most of the time the Freeways are parking lots. Florida is a lot of elderly doing the same exact thing.. except they have their turn signals on 24/7 too
Yeah, it saves money but the amount money this saves is laughable. A function to look for a default password before adding a default route is tiny, and once stored in prom you are done. As to (your post above) the Engineer claiming "it's not safe" that guy should be fired and replaced with someone willing to make "better" security, not "perfect" security, if in fact an Engineer refused to implement something like this. I have seen some like that in the business, but thankfully they are very rare.
I agree fully, it would not be hard to detect if the default password was in place and disable routing outside of RFC1918 addresses if it's the default.
Schrödinger's cat would have been a more common and well known argument, but that does not happen to fix the paradox of whether or not the Universe requires something in order to exist. Schrödinger's cat it's a separate paradox that attempts demonstrate that reality is not only subjective, but two alternative realities exist simultaneously.
A Universe from Nothing is a book that came out a few years ago, explaining the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory (and has a few slight derivations). The problem is that "nothing" is completely bogus. EV/EQV requires that space, time, matter, energy, and all of the laws of physics already exist. Just like Big Bang which also can't resolve the paradox.
I happen to like this theory better than a big bang, but it has some problems that the BB crowd despises. Outside of the obvious evil competing theory, the Universe would be much older than BB claims.
I think this is the important one, most devices come with a 1 page guide in at least 5 languages that say "CHANGE THE PASSWORD BY DOING THIS ONE THING" and people don't even bother to read the 1 page guide. It's not just an issue of understanding, it's apathy and laziness.
Your analogy does not work unless you want to claim that everyone with a Diebold lock is issued the same key. It is not breaking in, it's looking in a windows lacking shutters. If you, as an adult, see a crowd of kids watching someone undress in an open window you have 3 options.
1. Ignore it. Kids are still going to peek, so IMHO you are a douche for ignoring it.
2. Tell the person "Hey, you may want to close that blind when your changing because kids are peeking". This seems to be the most rational and logical thing to do, but as with TFA people are going to accuse you of peeking yourself. Mostly to cover their embarrassment.
3. Go peek with them! Which is what the site hosting all the cameras really is.
It would be a different story if this site was brute forcing passwords, but they are not.
Some people just don't care to close the windows, or get a thrill by keeping them open. They know that people are looking, and you telling them won't help. If that is their prerogative the expectation is that people will look.
British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally
That's not what I said and not what I believe. It's not what TFA is about either.
Your statement was comparing what should be illegal surveillance of British citizens with a foreign diplomat, and giving the okay because of that comparison. Your statement was not very specific, so perhaps you intended something else but did not make necessary clarification.
I am dead set against that. The only example I gave was spying on a foreign leader which, as I said, I consider distasteful but (sometimes) necessary. You can, and quite possibly do, disagree with that and that's fine.
Thanks for the clarification. What you present above is exactly what I said most people are not against. This is not what the article is about however, it is about UK spies spying on privileged UK citizen data.
Whilst I don't believe I'm an apologist, debate and dialogue is what we're having here, and you'll see a previous comment of mine above where I said it's a good thing that we're outraged. And yes, I'm outraged if the government and/or intelligence agencies have been abusing their power.
The debate here is not the same as a UK citizen trying to send grievance to their Government. That is the debate that should be occurring, and does not occur because if 10 Brits gather to petition they are met by 50 Bobbies and sent home (with lumps if it's not hasty enough). That is the power this surveillance has, and is the part that gets ignored/overlooked in this platform.
It may not have been your intent to appear as an apologist, but this is what happens when we try to paint things like surveillance into an exactly black and white picture or at least blur all of the boundaries. The discussion needs to make clear distinction between foreign and domestic surveillance. Two separate pictures, two separate operations, two separate sets of regulation, and two separate sets of goals. One, we would probably agree relates to national security. The other leads to tyranny when it's not very well monitored and controlled. Anyone looking at the UK, US, (and many other EU nations as well) can see the regulation slipping toward a more severe tyranny. Watching journalists get arrested and protesters get beaten means that it's already here, so things can only get worse unless the trends are drastically changed.
Why do people like you continue to propagate this fantasy that British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally, then give it a thumbs up because the law gets stealth changed so that it's no longer illegal? I'll be fair, people in the US have done the same thing, as have people in Germany.
People that are against this activity don't cry foul because spies are spying on Iran, or DPRK, or Turkey, etc... they are outraged because the spies have turned inward and worry more about people having a negative opinion of their home governments activities. People against this realize the measurable effect this has had on Free Speech, apologists don't want debate and dialogue. People against this activity can make parallels in history to other countries that have done the same thing and where it took the populations, apologists ignore history and seem to believe that being an apologist will make them immune to persecution.
Trying to conflate the jobs of law enforcement and "spying" to be the same thing is simply wrong. Law enforcement is supposed to follow the law when collecting evidence, there is a paper trail (or should be) to ensure that the people claiming to uphold the law are upholding the law. Warrants ensure oversight, Judges are supposed to stop abuses of power with the authority to issue a warrant. The whole system has been circumvented at this point, and there is no accountability or oversight.
Just like in the US, the UK has been spending billions of pounds every year for alleged "domestic terrorism" with no visible or measurable results. What can be viewed and measured is that people don't gather to show discontent with how their tax money is being spent very often. When they do there is a large police force waiting to ambush them and beat them into submission. This is the Government you live in, and complacency won't fix it.
Not only will no executives be on trial for tax evasion, and not only will they not lose any of the fortunes they have been amassing as "bonuses", but we will soon be hearing about how Amazon is broke and taxes are unfair for a company the size of Amazon (it's only good for us commoners to keep us common).
Oh wait, a few threads are already making those latter claims...
The FBI claims that under Benthall's leadership, Silk Road 2.0, as of September 2014, allowed more than 100,000 people to buy illegal drugs, generating roughly $8 million per month in sales.
I'm not sure what Silk Road's cut of that 8million is, but even 1% is a nice chunk of monthly revenue. More than enough to pay for a few AWS servers and live on.
I highly doubt that these guys get into this type of service for any other reason than to make lots of cash. Legal channels are already clogged with robbers, er.. bankers (cheap shot I know) so how else do you try and make lots of money?
Let what sink in? The fact that 3 guys defrauded banks for a cool billion dollars each? The fact that a company with a large fan base is getting sucked under? The fact that this will have a chilling effect on the PC market? Obviously the banks blew it by not noticing the fraud occurring, yet tax payers will drawn in to fix the banks. Tax payers should really be hot about this. I really hope these guys get burned, or at least flow right into a long brisk term in "Federal Pound me in the Ass Prison"!
Intended as punny, not necessarily factually accurate.
Facebook has a known history of changing security settings, so safe today is not safe tomorrow. Almost every major security change has been done via stealth, leaving users to race to go fix things after the fact. This is just a behavior problem with the company so not the same issue as TFA is discussing, but worth mentioning since "playing safe" is impossible when a company intentionally circumvents all of your efforts to be "responsible".
The design of Facebook is such that you can't play safe. Conversations are ordered based on "likes", not based on chronology. So you have to get "likes" to be seen in a crowd, and you gain more "likes" by expanding your profile to more and more people. Anyone wanting to be seen has to open their profile to more and more people in order to compete, so the design is to not have tight control over who can see your information. In fact control is discouraged (and what gets broken most frequently in security changes). Contrary to your last sentence, scams happen to appeal to the people that use the system exactly as intended and designed (the point of TFA).
The implementation of the moronically named "Timeline" feature which removed chronological based dialogue and replaced it with "like" based dialogue was when I stopped using Facebook all together. Prior to that, I agree that Facebook could have been used for conversations with smaller groups. Even if no "likes" are assigned to comments algorithms order your post based on content Facebook wants to be popular. Cat memes will top political dialogue if the viewership is a high enough threshold for Facebook to notice.
In the words of Nancy Reagan, "Just say No!". (probably showing my age with that quote, so get off mah lawnz!)
Firefox is open sourced, you can go download and review the source code. This would seem to be fair since you have Linux on your list, yet numerous flavors are from the US. The worst Linux in my ever so humble opinion is Ubuntu which is headquartered in the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad I'm not the only one that does this on occasion. The unfortunate nature of Slashdot is that it is perceived that one needs to post quickly to be seen.
You repeated mostly what Charles Barkley said in an interview about a week back, but you missed his point that having served a prison term is considered "cool" and "street creds". Ironic that this article blames the problem on racism instead of reality, considering that I mentioned this same thing in a different propaganda thread this morning regarding misogyny.
Certainly racism exists, but there are much bigger issues at hand. The same people propagating the "racism" arguments happen to be the same people propagating "misogyny", and the same people promoting and glamorizing a certain lifestyle through various forms of media.
You have it wrong, this is not about legitimizing harassment of women. It's about a propaganda war which attempts to perpetuate and inflate stereotypes of the oppressed women and abusive man. A similar propaganda war has been going on attempting to propagate racial tensions, and another war for Religious tensions. I won't distract further than the mention of the latter two, but if you are truly interested there is plenty of information to find on those as well. For now, lets stick with the misogyny.
First, there is real discrimination and real pricks that truly believe they are better than women. Those people are an extreme minority, but they do exist. In order to increase tensions, those extremes are portrayed as the normal. Small examples are inflated and portrayed like "everyone does it", and fake issues get repeated until people start to believe them. You hint at one of the latter, but completely miss the mark for "why?" the fake issue is not corrected.
As an example, we are told by media that women can't get IT jobs because "misogyny". The reality is that there are countless reasons other than misogyny that women don't want to work in many IT jobs. Journalists won't talk about those other reasons, and people over time start to believe that the only reason for a lack of women in IT is discrimination. Instead of the obvious, such as demand for insanely long work hours and tedious work for little reward. Lack of career progression, since the management side of IT is a completely different degree and skill set (some people get promoted up without, but we are talking "normals" not exceptions here). Work/Personal life balance is always shifted to "work" if you want to progress in IT. And lets not forget that if you want to start a family the woman must sacrifice work life, the man has no womb so can't do that work (which is another item often portrayed as misogyny even though there is an obvious physical requirement involved).
In reality, there are trolls. They do so for various reasons, but one of the known is a desire for attention. Given that known, it should be obvious to anyone looking that all kinds of people get trolled. They are a minority, and are best dealt with by simply ignoring them when they show up. Free speech is too important to pass laws requiring identity all the time. The trade off is not worth it, and the majority would suffer. You think trolls have targets today, imagine when they can see that QQ4322 is "Rebecca Smith", because that's what identity requirements will do.
Another interesting fact is that many Trolls are bought and paid for by various people claiming to be on your side. Snowden's leaks showed that the US and UK have numerous departments using paid people who's job is FUD at all costs. It has also been leaked that certain corporations pay for trolling. Funny that of all the reports of evil trolling I have not yet seen anyone demand the identity of the paid trolls from companies and governments that are known to use them. Cui bono from that little fact is fun, especially considering that most media has the same few masters.
Comparing the prospects of a private company sending people to mars with the claim that "...at best, an amazingly hubristic fantasy: an absolute faith in the free market, in technology, in the media, in money, to be able to somehow, magically, do what thousands of highly qualified people in government agencies have so far not yet been able to do over decades of diligently trying, making slow headway through individually hard-won breakthroughs, working in relative anonymity pursuing their life’s work."
Every time NASA has tried to submit a proposal for an extended trip, whether back to the moon or to mars, they have been shut out of budget. Well, there was the one plan sent to Congress that was just a sick joke of inflated numbers, but after that there have been several very good proposals. No project has been funded, so how the hell can this person claim that Governments have tried to do this? Sorry, I don't count fighting for budget as doing any actual work, which quite frankly has been very well planned and could have been done if funding was approved.
The US seems to have been the only country with enough money to take on the challenge, and we can't do it because.. well, we'd rather spend trillions of dollars bombing brown skinned people and stirring up trouble in every other country in the world.
Eisenhower and Kennedy were correct, and we have been ignorant and complacent for far too long.
Thanks for the correction, I really need to be more aware of that homonym but don't use either mute or moot very often (IANAL where it would be somewhat common)
PGE? Enron? Do those happen to ring a bell? How about Exxon, or BP? If you still have no clue what corruption looks like in utilities you really are not trying. They already are Comcast-esque money grubbers, there is no transformation required. It's just harder to track down who actually owns power plants, water plants, sewage plants, etc...
Your last statement is that if a private company can trick you into giving them information the government should be able to just do it without the trickery? Sorry, the Government is supposed to prosecute violations of rights, not get in on the gig.
Your point is absolutely mute because this is not about net neutrality at all. Obama's statement does not do anything _for_ net neutrality, and I'll argue that it's more to ensure Government intrusion than to ensure access for everyone. Remember that as soon as it's rated as a "utility" it will have to receive more funding from tax payers for Government "monitoring" and "regulation" (read crony appointees). If you have doubts look how AT&T receives funding from tax payers to duplicate ALL traffic to various NSA facilities today.
If you want to see some of the most corrupt businesses alive today, look no further than utilities. This is nothing more than a front, primarily to stop the debate about Government intrusion but also to squeeze more money from the middle class.
Any road except the Free ways. El Camino, San Antonio, Lawrence, etc...
I'm not sure I was not over thinking, seems like we agree on the Executive part. I just put half the blame on the share holders who put specific executives in place. Package solutions are predictable. I.E. Buy a cloud host for X dollars a month. Revenue is based on Y units of X dollars, stock holders and executives love this because they don't have to think. Even better, you plug this into a front end and no more human involvement is needed, so it's seen as pure profit. The only variable in the equation is really Y units, so it's simple. Share holders want this, so ensure a management chain that agrees with this.
Project work on the other hand is complex, and requires people in all stages. There are variables like, how do you integrate a customers database when the customer can't figure it out or provide a complete schema? The money for doing these things is much larger but share holders see this as the worst form of gambling, like putting all of your money on the table for an all or nothing bet. Instead of what it really is, which is revenue of N+Q plus the X dollars for Y units to run it. This is hard to predict, you may have bid 500,000 on a job and it ends up bringing in a cool million.
Ever see what happens to companies that make more revenue than they predict in the stock market? They are punished for it, and management gets canned for it. That is the reality that we have in the market, and have had for at least a couple decades.
IBM has a fix, but I doubt very seriously they would consider it. The same problem plaguing IBM also plagued EDS, CSC, HP, Sun, SGI, and damn this list could get really long so I'll stop.
IBM's problem is that it forgot what made it a huge company. Rather, they remembered but said "F$^& it" and went to the "Lets make as much profit as possible and who cares about the customer business model.
All of the companies above with the exception of CSC are shells of what they used to be (outside of obviously IBM). CSC is excluded past here, as they are only on the brink of catastrophe, and quite collapsing yet... but close. Companies like IBM make money by customizing services for customers, and having a reliable competent staff on hand to do just that. All of these companies laid off the people that visited sites and made shit work. IBM not only sold off their PC and Laptop businesses, but their Global Services which was the bread and butter for IBM. Project work is hard, and you can't forecast with simple algorithms. IBM started outsourced a few things overseas for the same 500.00/hr rate and cancelled everything else, laying off what.. 80,000 people from their Global Services business? (memory, I don't feel like digging at the moment). All to make some executives big fat bonus checks and stock holders happy with easy to predict revenue (even if lower). Technical people that made shit work and made customers happy were considered not just overhead, but wasteful. IBM's attitude has become "if you don't like what we give you in the box, too bad.
So there you have it, there is the fix to IBM. Get Global Services back and get technical people into customers offices to make shit work for them. IBM would have to kiss a lot of ass and probably reduce rates for a while to gain customer confidence again, but possible. It's too late for Sun, SGI, EDS, DEC, and many others. IBM is big enough to revamp. I seriously doubt they will however, because they would have to reinvest in all of the people they have shit on for about a decade. That would cost management bonuses, and the executive management in IBM today is all about the big fat bonus checks.
This company goes under and then where do you get a job in Florida for IT? Yup, California's taxes suck but at least in SV there are plenty of IT jobs (at least for now)
Most boring mix up ever, I'd fall asleep. Most drivers in SV do 10-15 _under_ the speed limit even when traffic is open, and most of the time the Freeways are parking lots. Florida is a lot of elderly doing the same exact thing.. except they have their turn signals on 24/7 too
Yeah, it saves money but the amount money this saves is laughable. A function to look for a default password before adding a default route is tiny, and once stored in prom you are done. As to (your post above) the Engineer claiming "it's not safe" that guy should be fired and replaced with someone willing to make "better" security, not "perfect" security, if in fact an Engineer refused to implement something like this. I have seen some like that in the business, but thankfully they are very rare.
I agree fully, it would not be hard to detect if the default password was in place and disable routing outside of RFC1918 addresses if it's the default.
Schrödinger's cat would have been a more common and well known argument, but that does not happen to fix the paradox of whether or not the Universe requires something in order to exist. Schrödinger's cat it's a separate paradox that attempts demonstrate that reality is not only subjective, but two alternative realities exist simultaneously.
A Universe from Nothing is a book that came out a few years ago, explaining the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory (and has a few slight derivations). The problem is that "nothing" is completely bogus. EV/EQV requires that space, time, matter, energy, and all of the laws of physics already exist. Just like Big Bang which also can't resolve the paradox.
I happen to like this theory better than a big bang, but it has some problems that the BB crowd despises. Outside of the obvious evil competing theory, the Universe would be much older than BB claims.
I think this is the important one, most devices come with a 1 page guide in at least 5 languages that say "CHANGE THE PASSWORD BY DOING THIS ONE THING" and people don't even bother to read the 1 page guide. It's not just an issue of understanding, it's apathy and laziness.
Your analogy does not work unless you want to claim that everyone with a Diebold lock is issued the same key. It is not breaking in, it's looking in a windows lacking shutters. If you, as an adult, see a crowd of kids watching someone undress in an open window you have 3 options.
1. Ignore it. Kids are still going to peek, so IMHO you are a douche for ignoring it.
2. Tell the person "Hey, you may want to close that blind when your changing because kids are peeking". This seems to be the most rational and logical thing to do, but as with TFA people are going to accuse you of peeking yourself. Mostly to cover their embarrassment.
3. Go peek with them! Which is what the site hosting all the cameras really is.
It would be a different story if this site was brute forcing passwords, but they are not.
Some people just don't care to close the windows, or get a thrill by keeping them open. They know that people are looking, and you telling them won't help. If that is their prerogative the expectation is that people will look.
British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally
That's not what I said and not what I believe. It's not what TFA is about either.
Your statement was comparing what should be illegal surveillance of British citizens with a foreign diplomat, and giving the okay because of that comparison. Your statement was not very specific, so perhaps you intended something else but did not make necessary clarification.
I am dead set against that. The only example I gave was spying on a foreign leader which, as I said, I consider distasteful but (sometimes) necessary. You can, and quite possibly do, disagree with that and that's fine.
Thanks for the clarification. What you present above is exactly what I said most people are not against. This is not what the article is about however, it is about UK spies spying on privileged UK citizen data.
Whilst I don't believe I'm an apologist, debate and dialogue is what we're having here, and you'll see a previous comment of mine above where I said it's a good thing that we're outraged. And yes, I'm outraged if the government and/or intelligence agencies have been abusing their power.
The debate here is not the same as a UK citizen trying to send grievance to their Government. That is the debate that should be occurring, and does not occur because if 10 Brits gather to petition they are met by 50 Bobbies and sent home (with lumps if it's not hasty enough). That is the power this surveillance has, and is the part that gets ignored/overlooked in this platform.
It may not have been your intent to appear as an apologist, but this is what happens when we try to paint things like surveillance into an exactly black and white picture or at least blur all of the boundaries. The discussion needs to make clear distinction between foreign and domestic surveillance. Two separate pictures, two separate operations, two separate sets of regulation, and two separate sets of goals. One, we would probably agree relates to national security. The other leads to tyranny when it's not very well monitored and controlled. Anyone looking at the UK, US, (and many other EU nations as well) can see the regulation slipping toward a more severe tyranny. Watching journalists get arrested and protesters get beaten means that it's already here, so things can only get worse unless the trends are drastically changed.
Why do people like you continue to propagate this fantasy that British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally, then give it a thumbs up because the law gets stealth changed so that it's no longer illegal? I'll be fair, people in the US have done the same thing, as have people in Germany.
People that are against this activity don't cry foul because spies are spying on Iran, or DPRK, or Turkey, etc... they are outraged because the spies have turned inward and worry more about people having a negative opinion of their home governments activities. People against this realize the measurable effect this has had on Free Speech, apologists don't want debate and dialogue. People against this activity can make parallels in history to other countries that have done the same thing and where it took the populations, apologists ignore history and seem to believe that being an apologist will make them immune to persecution.
Trying to conflate the jobs of law enforcement and "spying" to be the same thing is simply wrong. Law enforcement is supposed to follow the law when collecting evidence, there is a paper trail (or should be) to ensure that the people claiming to uphold the law are upholding the law. Warrants ensure oversight, Judges are supposed to stop abuses of power with the authority to issue a warrant. The whole system has been circumvented at this point, and there is no accountability or oversight.
Just like in the US, the UK has been spending billions of pounds every year for alleged "domestic terrorism" with no visible or measurable results. What can be viewed and measured is that people don't gather to show discontent with how their tax money is being spent very often. When they do there is a large police force waiting to ambush them and beat them into submission. This is the Government you live in, and complacency won't fix it.
Not only will no executives be on trial for tax evasion, and not only will they not lose any of the fortunes they have been amassing as "bonuses", but we will soon be hearing about how Amazon is broke and taxes are unfair for a company the size of Amazon (it's only good for us commoners to keep us common).
Oh wait, a few threads are already making those latter claims...
The FBI claims that under Benthall's leadership, Silk Road 2.0, as of September 2014, allowed more than 100,000 people to buy illegal drugs, generating roughly $8 million per month in sales.
I'm not sure what Silk Road's cut of that 8million is, but even 1% is a nice chunk of monthly revenue. More than enough to pay for a few AWS servers and live on.
I highly doubt that these guys get into this type of service for any other reason than to make lots of cash. Legal channels are already clogged with robbers, er.. bankers (cheap shot I know) so how else do you try and make lots of money?
Let what sink in? The fact that 3 guys defrauded banks for a cool billion dollars each? The fact that a company with a large fan base is getting sucked under? The fact that this will have a chilling effect on the PC market? Obviously the banks blew it by not noticing the fraud occurring, yet tax payers will drawn in to fix the banks. Tax payers should really be hot about this. I really hope these guys get burned, or at least flow right into a long brisk term in "Federal Pound me in the Ass Prison"!
Intended as punny, not necessarily factually accurate.
Come on man, while it may be workplace friendly it's nearly as bad as goatse.
Facebook has a known history of changing security settings, so safe today is not safe tomorrow. Almost every major security change has been done via stealth, leaving users to race to go fix things after the fact. This is just a behavior problem with the company so not the same issue as TFA is discussing, but worth mentioning since "playing safe" is impossible when a company intentionally circumvents all of your efforts to be "responsible".
The design of Facebook is such that you can't play safe. Conversations are ordered based on "likes", not based on chronology. So you have to get "likes" to be seen in a crowd, and you gain more "likes" by expanding your profile to more and more people. Anyone wanting to be seen has to open their profile to more and more people in order to compete, so the design is to not have tight control over who can see your information. In fact control is discouraged (and what gets broken most frequently in security changes). Contrary to your last sentence, scams happen to appeal to the people that use the system exactly as intended and designed (the point of TFA).
The implementation of the moronically named "Timeline" feature which removed chronological based dialogue and replaced it with "like" based dialogue was when I stopped using Facebook all together. Prior to that, I agree that Facebook could have been used for conversations with smaller groups. Even if no "likes" are assigned to comments algorithms order your post based on content Facebook wants to be popular. Cat memes will top political dialogue if the viewership is a high enough threshold for Facebook to notice.
In the words of Nancy Reagan, "Just say No!". (probably showing my age with that quote, so get off mah lawnz!)
Firefox is open sourced, you can go download and review the source code. This would seem to be fair since you have Linux on your list, yet numerous flavors are from the US. The worst Linux in my ever so humble opinion is Ubuntu which is headquartered in the UK.