I support a lot of Macs, and haven't had those kinds of problems with Filevault. I've had some other kinds of problems (e.g. figuring out the best way to manage passwords and keys for thousands of computers), but not having Filevault screw up and lose data.
I think the bigger problem isn't the loss of Steve Jobs's ideas, but the loss of his ability to look at something and say, "Nope. Not good enough." I worry about Apple becoming gimmicky. Jobs seemed to be careful not to release things or make changes until they fit cohesively into the whole user interaction, providing an overall good user experience. I don't think he would have let Apple remove the headphone jack, for example, until there were a satisfying alternative method for connecting headphones.
They've made the occasional model that had something or other that died unexpectedly and often.
In fairness, in most of those cases, they admitted that there was some kind of manufacturing/design flaw and fixed/replaced it for free, sometimes even if the device was out of warranty.
Do you mean things like wanting to secure the border and vet immigrants makes you racist and xenophobic? Deporting criminals is racist? Saying that the inner cities are hell and education is broken makes you racist?
Well those things seem like opinions all around. Probably not much worth arguing about, since logic can't get you out of what it didn't get you into. If you're getting this upset about someone else not being that upset about immigrants, then... yeah, you're probably xenophobic. Especially if that "someone else" is Bill O'Reilly. I don't know you, though. And your above statements are so vague that no sensible person would agree or dispute it without inferring a lot about your assumptions.
We do secure our borders and vet immigrants. We could devote more resources to those things, but we could also devote less. Nobody is suggesting we completely open borders. Nobody seriously thinks we're going to completely secure them. Or... nobody serious thinks that? Similar with deporting criminals. Everyone is in favor of that, but the disagreement is over how many resources we should devote to deporting which criminals.
Saying inner cities are hell just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not racist, exactly, unless the reason you think they're hell is because you think black people live there. These days, white people love cities because many of them are pretty awesome. The more "inner" the city, the better, usually. Minorities have a tendency to get pushed into the outer city. And they're not necessarily hell. They're just poorer than the rich areas. I'm a white guy who lived in a black neighborhood for a couple years. It kinda sucked because there weren't any banks or good grocery stores, but the people were friendly.
Education is broken? Sure, some of it is somewhat broken, at least. It's not really working. I don't think anyone is happy with it. I'm not sure what you mean to imply by bringing that up. Did someone say you were racist because you thought education needed improvement? Or did you imply that the solution was to get rid of the minorities in the school?
So what's your point? Is it just to be angry at people and show that you have a very limited binary perspective?
That's one of the things that blows my mind. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who basically said, "I'm sick of all you billionaire New York atheists controlling my life! You're out of touch with the working man, and don't care about me!" and then proceeded to elect Trump. It's like an Onion article.
Hopefully not something other than your WSUS server because it would just be silly to voluntarily give up control of your network like that.
Oh... I get it. Wink wink, nudge nudge. Funny.
And hopefully you aren't silly enough to assume that everyone's use case is the same as yours (wink wink, nudge nudge).
I'm an MSP. I have an RMM that pushes out updates. My standard practice has been to turn off automated Windows updates and use the RMM's mechanism for deciding which updates to push. Unfortunately, the RMM's mechanism uses the Windows Update service, so I can't just kill it. So up until now, I had a nice little system that gave me really good control over patches across all of my clients, many of which don't have servers to install WSUS on. I could set up an internet-facing WSUS server for all of my clients, but the last I heard, that would be a violation of the licensing terms and in violation of best practices. Fuck me, right?
Well really, it's not like it's just Democrats and Republicans posting fake news during this election. Every once in a while, my mom posts a story that says something like, "If you post this story on Facebook, Bill Gates will give you a millions dollars!" Every time I have to explain that it's not real. I understand the story says, "I know it's hard to believe, but it's REAL!" It's still not real. It doesn't even make sense. Stop posting it.
We can debate about what Facebook should do about it, or even whether they should do anything about it, but it's absurd to claim that there are no fake news stories on Facebook.
Is this "fake news" meme anything more than progressive echo chamber stuff? I saw plenty of pure anti-Trump bullshit polluting Facebook before the election.
Wait, so you doubt that there's fake news on Facebook, and as evidence you cite the fact that you saw a lot of anti-Trump fake news? Wouldn't that still be fake news?
The auto-filtering criteria apparently caused far more right-leaning stories to be filtered than left-leaning stories... So basically, it was bad code...
Was the decision made purely based on the fact that it was filtering more right-leaning stories? Did someone evaluate whether it was because there were more false right-leaning stories being posted?
No, we don't. Microsoft has been stripping administrative controls from Windows. Build 1607, for example, removes the ability for IT departments to control whether/when Windows Update runs.
This very well may be true. However, one thing I know to be true in life, is that One Size Fits All is a myth.
I'm presenting an argument for why Microsoft shouldn't force the same settings on everyone. You also seem to be presenting an argument for why Microsoft shouldn't force the same settings on everyone. Can we agree to agree on this one?
A fine stance if you are a a technically competent IT pro or equivalent. However for the 99+% of the people out there who don't fit that description, having the security handled by the system vendor can actually be a good idea.
Let's assume that's true. It doesn't follow that 99+% of computers aren't managed by people who are competent. A lot of those users are using computers that are managed by IT departments, and Microsoft is taking control away from those IT departments.
I would 100% endorse Microsoft trying to set sensible defaults, and hiding complex or dangerous controls in the registry where those incompetent users won't be able to find them. The controls should still exist somewhere.
I don't even understand how "Citizen of Earth" understands that video to be a promise not to investigate illegal voting. It's pretty damned clear that he's not encouraging illegal immigrants from voting. He's talking about attempted voter suppression and intimidate, and trying to reassure new citizens (who might have friends/family here illegal, and may not feel completely confident yet about their own place in our society) that they won't face retaliation for voting.
He prefaces the whole thing by pointing out that you can't vote unless you're a citizen, and then his entire explanation is basically, "Voting is confidential, so nobody is going to come after you or your family based on who you voted for."
I already hate Facebook, and would not recommend using it. I'm just confused as to what you think is going on, or how you think it all works. Who are these propagandists, and what's their connection to Facebook? Why would Facebook do what they want, when their whole business model relies on the good faith of their users? What stories do you think they're going to start censoring? And if they do start censoring, what do you think is being violated? Do you think you have a right to tell Facebook what their policies are? Or do you think the government should be regulating Facebook to keep it politically neutral? If you think Facebook is so terrible, why wouldn't you just stop using Facebook?
I really don't know the answers to all these questions, but I suspect you're either a troll or a whackadoo, and I'm not sure how you have any karma.
I reread his quotes. I still can't find anywhere that Obama has even asked Facebook to filter misleading stories. He just comments that there's misleading/false stories being posted on Facebook.
But incidentally, Facebook does have the right to censor/filter content on their site. That still doesn't qualify as a violation of your freedom of speech. If you don't like Facebook's policies, you have the right and the ability to not-use Facebook, to use another service, or to create another service with different rules. Nobody is oppressing you just because Obama has made a true statement that there's some nonsense on Facebook.
Kristian Saucier went to jail for much less than that: taking selfies in a restricted area. [theguardian.com] Didn't even send them to anyone.
The article says that he knowingly took photos of classified material with the intention of showing them to people. I'll grant you that he didn't mean any harm by it (no one seems to be claiming that he was going to sell the info to foreign governments), but he was knowingly and intentionally trying to share classified material with outside people.
As far as I know, there are no allegations that Clinton had the intention of sharing classified information with outside people. Even the people who argue that Clinton was doing terrible things are not arguing that she set up the mail server in order to share classified information with others, but rather to hide her dealings from scrutiny. Which... if that's true, then it really backfired in a spectacular fashion.
Still, as far as the issue of releasing classified information, all evidence points to the idea that she was careless to a degree that, among the thousands of emails she received on this server, only a handful contained classified information, and even that was unintentional. If Colin Powell had unintentionally received classified information on his private email account, do you think he would be in jail?
At the very least, it's philosophically objectionable to compelled to agree to a course of action that you don't actually actually know what the course of action will be yet.
So then... you're saying that Parliament should not feel compelled to follow the referendum because it's not specific enough?
It wouldn't make any sense investing the effort into forcing the government to be legally required to follow the results of a referendum whose results are not yet known...
And again, you're saying that it's dumb for Parliament to be forced to follow a referendum. Weren't you the one arguing that democracy was pointless if Parliament doesn't blindly follow the outcome of the referendum?
Anyway, I'm not sure what you think these clever objections are. You take a bill, as clear and specific as what the representatives would vote for, and instead allow a popular vote to decide whether it's passed, and the results are legally binding. I don't know whether there are laws in the UK that disallow such a referendum, but the news stories I've read indicated that they *could have* done that, and chose not to. Regardless, it is possible for a democracy to have a referendum of this sort, and the referendum we're talking about was not set up that way.
You can have a referendum where the government is legally required to follow the results of the referendum. Apparently that was not the case here.
I don't know if there are specific rules regarding this in the UK, but my understanding from reading about this in the news was that the referendum could have been legally binding or not, and they chose to make it not legally binding, but merely advisory. That is, it was specifically created in a way that would leave the government the option to ignore the results.
I meant that the point of one simply having a democratic system is entirely pointless if they aren't actually going to follow the democratic process and listen to what the people said that they want.
Depends on what you mean by "follow the democratic process". Does "follow the democratic process" mean that representatives should immediately do whatever the latest poll tells them? Or does it mean adhering to the rule of law, and following the procedures put in place?
Because this referendum was not legally binding. It was explicitly advisory, and there was nothing in the official legal process that said that the government must follow the outcome of the referendum. In fact, the official process is saying that the Parliament must vote on whether to leave the EU. So in a sense, this vote is explicitly part of the "democratic process".
Slashdot Mirror
I support a lot of Macs, and haven't had those kinds of problems with Filevault. I've had some other kinds of problems (e.g. figuring out the best way to manage passwords and keys for thousands of computers), but not having Filevault screw up and lose data.
At least, not for several years.
I think the bigger problem isn't the loss of Steve Jobs's ideas, but the loss of his ability to look at something and say, "Nope. Not good enough." I worry about Apple becoming gimmicky. Jobs seemed to be careful not to release things or make changes until they fit cohesively into the whole user interaction, providing an overall good user experience. I don't think he would have let Apple remove the headphone jack, for example, until there were a satisfying alternative method for connecting headphones.
Just a guess, obviously.
They've made the occasional model that had something or other that died unexpectedly and often.
In fairness, in most of those cases, they admitted that there was some kind of manufacturing/design flaw and fixed/replaced it for free, sometimes even if the device was out of warranty.
Good point. I preferred the seemingly not corrupt and not elitist candidate from New York, but somehow he didn't make it that far.
Does this count for something?
Do you mean things like wanting to secure the border and vet immigrants makes you racist and xenophobic? Deporting criminals is racist? Saying that the inner cities are hell and education is broken makes you racist?
Well those things seem like opinions all around. Probably not much worth arguing about, since logic can't get you out of what it didn't get you into. If you're getting this upset about someone else not being that upset about immigrants, then... yeah, you're probably xenophobic. Especially if that "someone else" is Bill O'Reilly. I don't know you, though. And your above statements are so vague that no sensible person would agree or dispute it without inferring a lot about your assumptions.
We do secure our borders and vet immigrants. We could devote more resources to those things, but we could also devote less. Nobody is suggesting we completely open borders. Nobody seriously thinks we're going to completely secure them. Or... nobody serious thinks that? Similar with deporting criminals. Everyone is in favor of that, but the disagreement is over how many resources we should devote to deporting which criminals.
Saying inner cities are hell just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not racist, exactly, unless the reason you think they're hell is because you think black people live there. These days, white people love cities because many of them are pretty awesome. The more "inner" the city, the better, usually. Minorities have a tendency to get pushed into the outer city. And they're not necessarily hell. They're just poorer than the rich areas. I'm a white guy who lived in a black neighborhood for a couple years. It kinda sucked because there weren't any banks or good grocery stores, but the people were friendly.
Education is broken? Sure, some of it is somewhat broken, at least. It's not really working. I don't think anyone is happy with it. I'm not sure what you mean to imply by bringing that up. Did someone say you were racist because you thought education needed improvement? Or did you imply that the solution was to get rid of the minorities in the school?
So what's your point? Is it just to be angry at people and show that you have a very limited binary perspective?
That's one of the things that blows my mind. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who basically said, "I'm sick of all you billionaire New York atheists controlling my life! You're out of touch with the working man, and don't care about me!" and then proceeded to elect Trump. It's like an Onion article.
There are the same Democratic talking points repeated with little to not rebuttals
Is it possible those talking points are simply true, and not rebutted for that reason?
Hopefully not something other than your WSUS server because it would just be silly to voluntarily give up control of your network like that.
Oh... I get it. Wink wink, nudge nudge. Funny.
And hopefully you aren't silly enough to assume that everyone's use case is the same as yours (wink wink, nudge nudge).
I'm an MSP. I have an RMM that pushes out updates. My standard practice has been to turn off automated Windows updates and use the RMM's mechanism for deciding which updates to push. Unfortunately, the RMM's mechanism uses the Windows Update service, so I can't just kill it. So up until now, I had a nice little system that gave me really good control over patches across all of my clients, many of which don't have servers to install WSUS on. I could set up an internet-facing WSUS server for all of my clients, but the last I heard, that would be a violation of the licensing terms and in violation of best practices. Fuck me, right?
Not that the left is innocent in all of this.
Well really, it's not like it's just Democrats and Republicans posting fake news during this election. Every once in a while, my mom posts a story that says something like, "If you post this story on Facebook, Bill Gates will give you a millions dollars!" Every time I have to explain that it's not real. I understand the story says, "I know it's hard to believe, but it's REAL!" It's still not real. It doesn't even make sense. Stop posting it.
We can debate about what Facebook should do about it, or even whether they should do anything about it, but it's absurd to claim that there are no fake news stories on Facebook.
Is this "fake news" meme anything more than progressive echo chamber stuff? I saw plenty of pure anti-Trump bullshit polluting Facebook before the election.
Wait, so you doubt that there's fake news on Facebook, and as evidence you cite the fact that you saw a lot of anti-Trump fake news? Wouldn't that still be fake news?
The auto-filtering criteria apparently caused far more right-leaning stories to be filtered than left-leaning stories... So basically, it was bad code...
Was the decision made purely based on the fact that it was filtering more right-leaning stories? Did someone evaluate whether it was because there were more false right-leaning stories being posted?
No, we don't. Microsoft has been stripping administrative controls from Windows. Build 1607, for example, removes the ability for IT departments to control whether/when Windows Update runs.
This very well may be true. However, one thing I know to be true in life, is that One Size Fits All is a myth.
I'm presenting an argument for why Microsoft shouldn't force the same settings on everyone. You also seem to be presenting an argument for why Microsoft shouldn't force the same settings on everyone. Can we agree to agree on this one?
A fine stance if you are a a technically competent IT pro or equivalent. However for the 99+% of the people out there who don't fit that description, having the security handled by the system vendor can actually be a good idea.
Let's assume that's true. It doesn't follow that 99+% of computers aren't managed by people who are competent. A lot of those users are using computers that are managed by IT departments, and Microsoft is taking control away from those IT departments.
I would 100% endorse Microsoft trying to set sensible defaults, and hiding complex or dangerous controls in the registry where those incompetent users won't be able to find them. The controls should still exist somewhere.
a non-functional set of gonads
Ignoring the rest of your message for a second, what are you trying to describe here?
I don't even understand how "Citizen of Earth" understands that video to be a promise not to investigate illegal voting. It's pretty damned clear that he's not encouraging illegal immigrants from voting. He's talking about attempted voter suppression and intimidate, and trying to reassure new citizens (who might have friends/family here illegal, and may not feel completely confident yet about their own place in our society) that they won't face retaliation for voting.
He prefaces the whole thing by pointing out that you can't vote unless you're a citizen, and then his entire explanation is basically, "Voting is confidential, so nobody is going to come after you or your family based on who you voted for."
I already hate Facebook, and would not recommend using it. I'm just confused as to what you think is going on, or how you think it all works. Who are these propagandists, and what's their connection to Facebook? Why would Facebook do what they want, when their whole business model relies on the good faith of their users? What stories do you think they're going to start censoring? And if they do start censoring, what do you think is being violated? Do you think you have a right to tell Facebook what their policies are? Or do you think the government should be regulating Facebook to keep it politically neutral? If you think Facebook is so terrible, why wouldn't you just stop using Facebook?
I really don't know the answers to all these questions, but I suspect you're either a troll or a whackadoo, and I'm not sure how you have any karma.
I reread his quotes. I still can't find anywhere that Obama has even asked Facebook to filter misleading stories. He just comments that there's misleading/false stories being posted on Facebook.
But incidentally, Facebook does have the right to censor/filter content on their site. That still doesn't qualify as a violation of your freedom of speech. If you don't like Facebook's policies, you have the right and the ability to not-use Facebook, to use another service, or to create another service with different rules. Nobody is oppressing you just because Obama has made a true statement that there's some nonsense on Facebook.
I mean, really, are you kidding me?
Did he advocate government censorship of Facebook? Or did he just comment that people post a lot of nonsense on Facebook?
People are always confusing "freedom of speech" with "the right to say any stupid thing I want without anyone pointing out that I'm wrong."
I don't get why people are having such a hard time grasping this.
They're not. They're having a hard time accepting it because they don't want it to be true.
Kristian Saucier went to jail for much less than that: taking selfies in a restricted area. [theguardian.com] Didn't even send them to anyone.
The article says that he knowingly took photos of classified material with the intention of showing them to people. I'll grant you that he didn't mean any harm by it (no one seems to be claiming that he was going to sell the info to foreign governments), but he was knowingly and intentionally trying to share classified material with outside people.
As far as I know, there are no allegations that Clinton had the intention of sharing classified information with outside people. Even the people who argue that Clinton was doing terrible things are not arguing that she set up the mail server in order to share classified information with others, but rather to hide her dealings from scrutiny. Which... if that's true, then it really backfired in a spectacular fashion.
Still, as far as the issue of releasing classified information, all evidence points to the idea that she was careless to a degree that, among the thousands of emails she received on this server, only a handful contained classified information, and even that was unintentional. If Colin Powell had unintentionally received classified information on his private email account, do you think he would be in jail?
At the very least, it's philosophically objectionable to compelled to agree to a course of action that you don't actually actually know what the course of action will be yet.
So then... you're saying that Parliament should not feel compelled to follow the referendum because it's not specific enough?
It wouldn't make any sense investing the effort into forcing the government to be legally required to follow the results of a referendum whose results are not yet known...
And again, you're saying that it's dumb for Parliament to be forced to follow a referendum. Weren't you the one arguing that democracy was pointless if Parliament doesn't blindly follow the outcome of the referendum?
Anyway, I'm not sure what you think these clever objections are. You take a bill, as clear and specific as what the representatives would vote for, and instead allow a popular vote to decide whether it's passed, and the results are legally binding. I don't know whether there are laws in the UK that disallow such a referendum, but the news stories I've read indicated that they *could have* done that, and chose not to. Regardless, it is possible for a democracy to have a referendum of this sort, and the referendum we're talking about was not set up that way.
You can have a referendum where the government is legally required to follow the results of the referendum. Apparently that was not the case here.
I don't know if there are specific rules regarding this in the UK, but my understanding from reading about this in the news was that the referendum could have been legally binding or not, and they chose to make it not legally binding, but merely advisory. That is, it was specifically created in a way that would leave the government the option to ignore the results.
I meant that the point of one simply having a democratic system is entirely pointless if they aren't actually going to follow the democratic process and listen to what the people said that they want.
Depends on what you mean by "follow the democratic process". Does "follow the democratic process" mean that representatives should immediately do whatever the latest poll tells them? Or does it mean adhering to the rule of law, and following the procedures put in place?
Because this referendum was not legally binding. It was explicitly advisory, and there was nothing in the official legal process that said that the government must follow the outcome of the referendum. In fact, the official process is saying that the Parliament must vote on whether to leave the EU. So in a sense, this vote is explicitly part of the "democratic process".