We all know people that have grown far less tolerant and far more angry, I'm talking both left and right.
I don't think we all know that! I see the younger generation being far *more* tolerant than the older generation. Do any of you have intolerant grandparents with whom you simply don't raise topics at Thanksgiving dinners? Think about how in the 60s how the older generation were intolerant of hippies. There's an interesting book by Stephen Pinker "The Better Angels of our Nature" where he calculates the numbers which show that human society has been becoming steadily more civilized and less violent on average over the millenia, centuries and decades. My impression is that the same is happening with tolerance.
(You might be basing your "we all know" based on your perception of US political discourse from the past 10 years? I think that's an outlier but not enough to swing the average much.)
It wasn't chanting that made MLK or Ghandi effective or created change.
?? If you mean specifically "chant some words" then no of course not. But chanting as part of a protest gathering -- this is exactly what caused change.
Chanting does a lot of good. It really changes things, because the government really cares what you think.
See: Gandhi, MLK, John Woolman, Emmeline Pankhurst, Ned Ludd, and the "can't pay won't pay" chants that took down Margaret Thatcher - http://www.economist.com/node/...
I think that chanting is the most effective means we have to change society, second only to "having lots of money". (albeit a distant second).
It could be worse, the UN could be taking over the root servers, followed by 14 years of meetings to decide which DNS Council member would have complete control.
That sentence doesn't make sense. "UN" basically means "the collective will of the world's nations". If the world's nations collectively want something to be done, they do it (e.g. eradicate polio). If they can't collectively agree on action then it doesn't get done (e.g. help Syria).
Writing it out, your sentence becomes:
"It could be worse. The root servers could be managed by the collective will of the world's nations, followed by 14 years of meetings when they find there isn't actually a collective agreement on what to do."
That's incorrect. Depending on the legal instrument, some of them can be written on anything. "You can write contracts on a napkin, a ticket stub, a pizza box - just about anything ink will stick to." - http://www.lawyers-plus.com/ca...
Different legal instruments have different requirements for what they need to be valid. DNRs across all states (I think) require a doctor's signature (so a tattoo that included a doctor's signature would presumably be valid). Some of them require a particular state-issued form to be used as well (so a tattoo in those states wouldn't be valid). Some of them require yellow paper. In my own state of Washington, property recording instruments even have a specified margin sizes in inches for them to be valid.
In the act that introduced electronic signatures, nowhere did it say that "electronic signatures are valid". Instead it said "a legal instrument shall not be deemed invalid solely on the grounds of the signatures on it being electronic".
TLDR: "legal document" isn't a well-defined concept. "Validly executed legal instrument" is a well-defined concept. The exact requirements for validity depend on the instrument in question and on jurisdiction.
To what extent is this SOC comparable to Intel's management engine? Isn't Google basically putting a second computer in my computer? With all the risks that entails?
It's not comparable at all. It's completely unrelated. You presumably have a graphics card inside your computer? The graphics card is basically a second computer. It doesn't entail risks.
The UK too has nigh on unaffordable nuclear power also without any Democrats. I think you'll have to dig up a new conspiracy scapegoat to justify your prejudices.
And speak of the devil. EA is now trying to shift the narritive to "omg, woe is me, we've gotten death threats." bullshit to try and derail this. Of course no proof is offered at all.
Game creators / studios receiving death threats? -- that's not extraordinary. That's become so sadly common, almost par for the course, that at this point it would be extraordinary if they hadn't received death threats.
If you remember, Touchid was similarly soon broken, and it also required quite some commitment from the hacker. Still, for most people the security of TouchId was good enough and practical in use. I expect the same with FaceID. For the utmost in security, users can always opt for a passcode.
It won't take commitment from a hacker. I reckon that within six months there'll be online services where for $45 you upload to them 5 high resolution photos of a target's face from various angles, and they reconstruct a 3d model from those photos, and build a silicone face for you to unlock the target's phone. The initial market will be for people wanting to snoop on their partner's or children's phones.
My brother already has bought a 3d hologram from a scan of his face, just a touristy gimmick from a science museum somewhere. The technology to reconstruct 3d objects from a set of 2d images is pretty far advanced too at the moment. So business which offer this service will have a legitimate leg to stand on -- it's not like they're producing something whose sole and inevitable purpose is to unlock phones.
The threat of jail doesn't keep people from committing crimes.
True, but the likelihood of getting caught does have a strong deterrence effect. I think Amazon did really well on this one because it looks like a clear 100% likelihood of being caught and punished. https://nij.gov/five-things/pa...
1. The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.... 3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished. 4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime....
Are they going to release the source material to the public so that we can find anything that the 380 journalists "accidentally" missed or forgot to report in their zeal to be completely unbiased and impartial while on the payroll of major news organizations?
Indeed, last time after the full release there was no indication that the journalists had failed to be unbiased or impartial in their initial reporting. So there's zero grounds for you to be suspicious this time.
. . . could have told you that. Heck. the K/T Event has a distinct signature in any rock column, and its' characterization. . . in the 1980s. . . led to the TTAPS paper, better known as the "Nuclear Winter" paper. This is 35+ year-old "news". ..
As TFS says, "The new assessment gives scientists a much clearer picture of the climate catastrophe following the event."
I'm not sure what your point is? Everyone knows what happened. This is a piece of scientific research. It deepens our understanding of the event a little, adds more data-points, tightens some variables, gets corroborating evidence from a different (more direct) technique.
While I too would question the validity of something just using name and birthdate as identifying factors.... For the life of me, I can't imagine how this would affect "voters of color" more than it would any lighter skinned race. Heck, with the colorful and imaginative names that blacks are giving their kids these days, I'd have thought that it would NOT target them, since they use so many uncommon spellings and uncommon names? I'd have thought you'd have a whole lot more "Robert Cooper" vs "Shaquillia Jackson" born on any given date?
What's that word for when you have stereotypes and incorrect assumptions based on race, don't bother investigating whether they're true, and they end up with you not recognizing/acknowledging that a racial group ends up being treated disproportionately unfairly?
NSA->employee->Home system->Kaspersky AV->Kaspersky Lab servers --------> Russian Govt? If Kaspersky isn't working with the Russian govt, how did their Lab data end up with the Russian govt?
Israeli Spies 'Watched Russian Agents Breach Kaspersky Software' Israeli spies looked on as Russian hackers breached Kaspersky cyber-security software two years ago, according to reports. The Russians were allegedly attempting to gather data on US intelligence programs, according to the New York Times and Washington Post. Israeli agents made the discovery after breaching the software themselves. Kaspersky has said it was neither involved in nor aware of the situation and denies collusion with authorities.
So the user will be asked a number of times (probably once per appli / folder) if they agree to allow that appli to access that folder, then when they see the fake "Adobe something wants to access your folder" they will be used to automatically Yes it.
No. RTFA. They will see an error dialog that says "Access is denied. Use File>SaveAs to save under a different location or name." The only way to enable it is (1) opt in via the control panel, (2) chose apps via the control panel.
How the hell is Microsoft continuing to make money? I don't get it. They are hurting in every area as people bail on their garbage, proprietary software left and right. From the complete failure of Windows Mobile, to people's complete hatred of Windows 10, to people abandoning Windows entirely for Mac and Chrome OS/Linux. How is this even possible? Is it still just the same, old monopoly problem with them bullying manufacturers into pre-installing their operating system on all of their machines? Or is it the mega-corporations with incompetent IT staff that continue to insist on using their software on thousands of PCs? This is just incredibly sad news...
Correction 1: now that they've pulled the plug on Windows Mobile, they're no longer wasting money on it, hence more profit.
Correction 2: it's some of slashdot that hates Windows 10, no one else.
Correction 3: I haven't seen any clear trend of abandoning Windows for Mac/Chrome/Linux. My workplace is mostly mac laptops for development, but more and more people are moving to Windows because they want better laptops (cheaper, touch screens, pens, more ports, whatever).
Correction 4: you don't seem to payed attention to any of their business-to-business offerings, like Azure, Office365,... Microsoft do vastly more than just PCs.
This bill wouldn't have had any effect at all on the ads in question.
This bill is a straightforward extension of the existing Federal Election Campaign Act so it also covers internet advertising. That's fine and is good. It says that any "qualified political advertisement" must be disclosed. A qualified political advertisement is defined as one which (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, (2) is targeted to the relevant electorate.
The ads in question? They weren't qualified political advertisements. They weren't geared towards any one political candidate. They were general sowing of division and antipathy between groups. "Some of the ads supported Black Lives Matter and other groups bringing attention to the tense relationship between law enforcement and people of color. Yet other ads painted these activist organizations as a rising political threat." (article1). "Some championed activist groups like Black Lives Matter, while others portrayed them as existential threats. Others aimed to split opinions through hot-button issues like Islam, LGBT rights, gun rights and immigration." -- (article2).
So this bill is fine and good and just makes sense. But if there were indeed Russian ads as described in the past electoral cycle, then their propaganda is years ahead of our own legislators.
How is it any different for closed source software?
Presumably the difference is mainly between FREE software (usually open-source) which it's easy to incorporate without any kind of tracking other than what's written in your build system.
Versus COMMERCIAL software (usually closed-source) where you definitely have tracking -- purchases, sign-offs, ongoing commercial relationships, and just lots of business process. When you bought it you probably had a sales-droid from the selling company assigned to your account, and they'll be sending you emails and reminders and security notices as part of enticing you to pay money for their next version. It's just an additional typical-business-friendly way that updates and issues will be tracked.
It offered a friend suggestion for a person I'd had no online interaction with, but sat down with that day at Starbucks for an hour.
I bet that friend got home and looked you up on Facebook to see more about you, browse through your photos etc. And that if they look you up, then they get suggested to you as a friend.
You can have 'respectful parent-child relationships' without teaching your children than it's okay for corporations and governments to spy on you in what should be the sanctuary of your home, or that their very-much-normal-and-natural NEED for privacy is somehow abberant and unnatural, and that mere 'convenience' is somehow more important than any of those. Or do you not care if your children grow up to be ill-adjusted and neurotic adults? Or are you just so lazy that you don't care and your 'convenience' is more important than anything else?
What?
I'm teaching my toddlers that in their parents' house, when they play in the public playroom, their parents will be able to call to them over the screen. I assure you that at the age of 1 year old they don't know what a corporation is, don't know what a government is, and their notion of "spying" (more correctly, "peekaboo") includes the belief that if they put a dishcloth over their face then no one can see them.
I specifically do NOT want them to believe that their parents are at their beck and call. I will not come up two flights of stairs to give them a five-minute notice and then come up again when it's time. Toddlers need the certainty that their parents are solid rocks, and that they orbit the parents. If the parents come to the child for this kind of trivial thing (fetching for dinner) then this breeds insecurity.
I'm having trouble finding the specific details. It looks like they aren't releasing all the details publicly until a conference on November 2nd https://crocs.fi.muni.cz/public/papers/rsa_ccs17 but it appears to be a problem only with RSA keys they generate and has to do with how they are generating large primes, not a fundamental flaw in RSA.
Ars Technica explains more. Says it's a fault specifically with the implementation used by Infineon to generate keys, not with other more correct ways to generate keys.
Ask yourself this: What did I do before these things existed? What did EVERYONE do before these things existed? You do not NEED this technology, and the so-called 'benefits' do NOT outweigh the cost in invasion of your privacy and theft of your personal information. Re-examine your priorities.
What people did before is walk to the bottom of the stairs and yell at their children that dinner's ready and they'd be ready for an ass-whoopin' if they didn't come down promptly. We're progressing to better and more respectful parent-child relationships. So I'm facing a real concrete benefit to my family dynamics vs a theoretical risk of privacy invasion.
Slashdot Mirror
We all know people that have grown far less tolerant and far more angry, I'm talking both left and right.
I don't think we all know that! I see the younger generation being far *more* tolerant than the older generation. Do any of you have intolerant grandparents with whom you simply don't raise topics at Thanksgiving dinners? Think about how in the 60s how the older generation were intolerant of hippies. There's an interesting book by Stephen Pinker "The Better Angels of our Nature" where he calculates the numbers which show that human society has been becoming steadily more civilized and less violent on average over the millenia, centuries and decades. My impression is that the same is happening with tolerance.
(You might be basing your "we all know" based on your perception of US political discourse from the past 10 years? I think that's an outlier but not enough to swing the average much.)
It wasn't chanting that made MLK or Ghandi effective or created change.
?? If you mean specifically "chant some words" then no of course not. But chanting as part of a protest gathering -- this is exactly what caused change.
Chanting does a lot of good. It really changes things, because the government really cares what you think.
See: Gandhi, MLK, John Woolman, Emmeline Pankhurst, Ned Ludd, and the "can't pay won't pay" chants that took down Margaret Thatcher - http://www.economist.com/node/...
I think that chanting is the most effective means we have to change society, second only to "having lots of money". (albeit a distant second).
It could be worse, the UN could be taking over the root servers, followed by 14 years of meetings to decide which DNS Council member would have complete control.
That sentence doesn't make sense. "UN" basically means "the collective will of the world's nations". If the world's nations collectively want something to be done, they do it (e.g. eradicate polio). If they can't collectively agree on action then it doesn't get done (e.g. help Syria).
Writing it out, your sentence becomes:
"It could be worse. The root servers could be managed by the collective will of the world's nations, followed by 14 years of meetings when they find there isn't actually a collective agreement on what to do."
A tattoo is not a legal document.
That's incorrect. Depending on the legal instrument, some of them can be written on anything. "You can write contracts on a napkin, a ticket stub, a pizza box - just about anything ink will stick to." - http://www.lawyers-plus.com/ca...
Different legal instruments have different requirements for what they need to be valid. DNRs across all states (I think) require a doctor's signature (so a tattoo that included a doctor's signature would presumably be valid). Some of them require a particular state-issued form to be used as well (so a tattoo in those states wouldn't be valid). Some of them require yellow paper. In my own state of Washington, property recording instruments even have a specified margin sizes in inches for them to be valid.
In the act that introduced electronic signatures, nowhere did it say that "electronic signatures are valid". Instead it said "a legal instrument shall not be deemed invalid solely on the grounds of the signatures on it being electronic".
TLDR: "legal document" isn't a well-defined concept. "Validly executed legal instrument" is a well-defined concept. The exact requirements for validity depend on the instrument in question and on jurisdiction.
To what extent is this SOC comparable to Intel's management engine? Isn't Google basically putting a second computer in my computer? With all the risks that entails?
It's not comparable at all. It's completely unrelated. You presumably have a graphics card inside your computer? The graphics card is basically a second computer. It doesn't entail risks.
The UK too has nigh on unaffordable nuclear power also without any Democrats. I think you'll have to dig up a new conspiracy scapegoat to justify your prejudices.
And speak of the devil. EA is now trying to shift the narritive to "omg, woe is me, we've gotten death threats." bullshit to try and derail this. Of course no proof is offered at all.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Game creators / studios receiving death threats? -- that's not extraordinary. That's become so sadly common, almost par for the course, that at this point it would be extraordinary if they hadn't received death threats.
If you remember, Touchid was similarly soon broken, and it also required quite some commitment from the hacker. Still, for most people the security of TouchId was good enough and practical in use. I expect the same with FaceID. For the utmost in security, users can always opt for a passcode.
It won't take commitment from a hacker. I reckon that within six months there'll be online services where for $45 you upload to them 5 high resolution photos of a target's face from various angles, and they reconstruct a 3d model from those photos, and build a silicone face for you to unlock the target's phone. The initial market will be for people wanting to snoop on their partner's or children's phones.
My brother already has bought a 3d hologram from a scan of his face, just a touristy gimmick from a science museum somewhere. The technology to reconstruct 3d objects from a set of 2d images is pretty far advanced too at the moment. So business which offer this service will have a legitimate leg to stand on -- it's not like they're producing something whose sole and inevitable purpose is to unlock phones.
Just out of idle curiosity... Are you serious? And if so, where the hell do you live?
The International Space Station. ('Racoon' is spacer slang for micro-meteorites. That's my guess.)
The threat of jail doesn't keep people from committing crimes.
True, but the likelihood of getting caught does have a strong deterrence effect. I think Amazon did really well on this one because it looks like a clear 100% likelihood of being caught and punished. https://nij.gov/five-things/pa...
1. The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. ... ...
3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.
4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
Are they going to release the source material to the public so that we can find anything that the 380 journalists "accidentally" missed or forgot to report in their zeal to be completely unbiased and impartial while on the payroll of major news organizations?
Last time they did release a complete searchable database of the leak - https://panamapapers.icij.org/..., https://offshoreleaks.icij.org... - so there's every reason to believe they'll do the same this time.
Indeed, last time after the full release there was no indication that the journalists had failed to be unbiased or impartial in their initial reporting. So there's zero grounds for you to be suspicious this time.
. . . could have told you that. Heck. the K/T Event has a distinct signature in any rock column, and its' characterization. . . in the 1980s. . . led to the TTAPS paper, better known as the "Nuclear Winter" paper. This is 35+ year-old "news". . .
As TFS says, "The new assessment gives scientists a much clearer picture of the climate catastrophe following the event."
I'm not sure what your point is? Everyone knows what happened. This is a piece of scientific research. It deepens our understanding of the event a little, adds more data-points, tightens some variables, gets corroborating evidence from a different (more direct) technique.
While I too would question the validity of something just using name and birthdate as identifying factors.... For the life of me, I can't imagine how this would affect "voters of color" more than it would any lighter skinned race. Heck, with the colorful and imaginative names that blacks are giving their kids these days, I'd have thought that it would NOT target them, since they use so many uncommon spellings and uncommon names? I'd have thought you'd have a whole lot more "Robert Cooper" vs "Shaquillia Jackson" born on any given date?
What's that word for when you have stereotypes and incorrect assumptions based on race, don't bother investigating whether they're true, and they end up with you not recognizing/acknowledging that a racial group ends up being treated disproportionately unfairly?
NSA->employee->Home system->Kaspersky AV->Kaspersky Lab servers --------> Russian Govt?
If Kaspersky isn't working with the Russian govt, how did their Lab data end up with the Russian govt?
Your "missing link" was already reported two weeks ago: https://politics.slashdot.org/...
Israeli Spies 'Watched Russian Agents Breach Kaspersky Software'
Israeli spies looked on as Russian hackers breached Kaspersky cyber-security software two years ago, according to reports. The Russians were allegedly attempting to gather data on US intelligence programs, according to the New York Times and Washington Post. Israeli agents made the discovery after breaching the software themselves. Kaspersky has said it was neither involved in nor aware of the situation and denies collusion with authorities.
So the user will be asked a number of times (probably once per appli / folder) if they agree to allow that appli to access that folder, then when they see the fake "Adobe something wants to access your folder" they will be used to automatically Yes it.
No. RTFA. They will see an error dialog that says "Access is denied. Use File>SaveAs to save under a different location or name." The only way to enable it is (1) opt in via the control panel, (2) chose apps via the control panel.
How the hell is Microsoft continuing to make money? I don't get it. They are hurting in every area as people bail on their garbage, proprietary software left and right. From the complete failure of Windows Mobile, to people's complete hatred of Windows 10, to people abandoning Windows entirely for Mac and Chrome OS/Linux. How is this even possible? Is it still just the same, old monopoly problem with them bullying manufacturers into pre-installing their operating system on all of their machines? Or is it the mega-corporations with incompetent IT staff that continue to insist on using their software on thousands of PCs? This is just incredibly sad news...
Correction 1: now that they've pulled the plug on Windows Mobile, they're no longer wasting money on it, hence more profit.
Correction 2: it's some of slashdot that hates Windows 10, no one else.
Correction 3: I haven't seen any clear trend of abandoning Windows for Mac/Chrome/Linux. My workplace is mostly mac laptops for development, but more and more people are moving to Windows because they want better laptops (cheaper, touch screens, pens, more ports, whatever).
Correction 4: you don't seem to payed attention to any of their business-to-business offerings, like Azure, Office365, ... Microsoft do vastly more than just PCs.
Read it. The honest adds act does its work by actually striking out large chunks of previous legislation. It adds a lot less than it removes.
This bill wouldn't have had any effect at all on the ads in question.
This bill is a straightforward extension of the existing Federal Election Campaign Act so it also covers internet advertising. That's fine and is good. It says that any "qualified political advertisement" must be disclosed. A qualified political advertisement is defined as one which (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, (2) is targeted to the relevant electorate.
The ads in question? They weren't qualified political advertisements. They weren't geared towards any one political candidate. They were general sowing of division and antipathy between groups. "Some of the ads supported Black Lives Matter and other groups bringing attention to the tense relationship between law enforcement and people of color. Yet other ads painted these activist organizations as a rising political threat." (article1). "Some championed activist groups like Black Lives Matter, while others portrayed them as existential threats. Others aimed to split opinions through hot-button issues like Islam, LGBT rights, gun rights and immigration." -- (article2).
So this bill is fine and good and just makes sense. But if there were indeed Russian ads as described in the past electoral cycle, then their propaganda is years ahead of our own legislators.
PS. Here's the full text of the proposed "Honest Ads Act": https://coffman.house.gov/uplo...
And here's the relevant federal law which it amends: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Amazon's $350,000 contribution represents .00014 of its CY 2016 net profit.
There are no units. It's a ratio.
How is it any different for closed source software?
Presumably the difference is mainly between FREE software (usually open-source) which it's easy to incorporate without any kind of tracking other than what's written in your build system.
Versus COMMERCIAL software (usually closed-source) where you definitely have tracking -- purchases, sign-offs, ongoing commercial relationships, and just lots of business process. When you bought it you probably had a sales-droid from the selling company assigned to your account, and they'll be sending you emails and reminders and security notices as part of enticing you to pay money for their next version. It's just an additional typical-business-friendly way that updates and issues will be tracked.
It offered a friend suggestion for a person I'd had no online interaction with, but sat down with that day at Starbucks for an hour.
I bet that friend got home and looked you up on Facebook to see more about you, browse through your photos etc. And that if they look you up, then they get suggested to you as a friend.
You can have 'respectful parent-child relationships' without teaching your children than it's okay for corporations and governments to spy on you in what should be the sanctuary of your home, or that their very-much-normal-and-natural NEED for privacy is somehow abberant and unnatural, and that mere 'convenience' is somehow more important than any of those. Or do you not care if your children grow up to be ill-adjusted and neurotic adults? Or are you just so lazy that you don't care and your 'convenience' is more important than anything else?
What?
I'm teaching my toddlers that in their parents' house, when they play in the public playroom, their parents will be able to call to them over the screen. I assure you that at the age of 1 year old they don't know what a corporation is, don't know what a government is, and their notion of "spying" (more correctly, "peekaboo") includes the belief that if they put a dishcloth over their face then no one can see them.
I specifically do NOT want them to believe that their parents are at their beck and call. I will not come up two flights of stairs to give them a five-minute notice and then come up again when it's time. Toddlers need the certainty that their parents are solid rocks, and that they orbit the parents. If the parents come to the child for this kind of trivial thing (fetching for dinner) then this breeds insecurity.
I'm having trouble finding the specific details. It looks like they aren't releasing all the details publicly until a conference on November 2nd https://crocs.fi.muni.cz/public/papers/rsa_ccs17 but it appears to be a problem only with RSA keys they generate and has to do with how they are generating large primes, not a fundamental flaw in RSA.
Ars Technica explains more. Says it's a fault specifically with the implementation used by Infineon to generate keys, not with other more correct ways to generate keys.
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
Ask yourself this: What did I do before these things existed? What did EVERYONE do before these things existed? You do not NEED this technology, and the so-called 'benefits' do NOT outweigh the cost in invasion of your privacy and theft of your personal information. Re-examine your priorities.
What people did before is walk to the bottom of the stairs and yell at their children that dinner's ready and they'd be ready for an ass-whoopin' if they didn't come down promptly. We're progressing to better and more respectful parent-child relationships. So I'm facing a real concrete benefit to my family dynamics vs a theoretical risk of privacy invasion.