He's talking about apport, I'm pretty sure. I responded to that. He's also pretending that a box you can uncheck using a program you can disable or uninstall in one single distro out of hundreds (and not even the most common one) is the same or worse than Microsoft dumping data that only they can decrypt over thousands of connections silently.
>Not only does it send searches, You can turn off the search send. It's being removed soon. If you care, don't use Ubuntu, use any other Linux. There's no one else providing distros of Windows to run to when Microsoft fails. They have failed.
> but each individual library or package can phone home to a different developer with different information collected about your system
First, it asks you each time, you can uncheck a box. Second, here's your fix:
apt-get remove apport
Did you want to keep it around? Edit/etc/default/apport and change "enabled" to 0. Then it won't launch on boot.
It's optional, it can be disabled, and it asks you each fucking time anyway.
> There's also more incentive for Linux software to monetize user activity There's no incentive for Linux (a kernel) to do this. There's no incentive for Linux as a general OS to do this. There is incentive for SOME companies that have Linux distributions to try to "monetize users", but you can, of course, simply not use their products- because Linux is a whole set of distributions.
Are you done with the fud? We'll never know AC, we'll never know.
You can trust any Linux governed by copyright law (so not like the DPRK Linux, but basically everything else). You can trust any of the open source BSDs. You might be able to trust OS X.
Telemetry has been pushed to 7, 8, and 8.1, but you can absolutely remove those updates. Without telemetry they behave as they did before- somewhat sketchy because they are Microsoft, but nowhere NEAR what we see in 10.
The Microsoft shills normally go down one of these paths:
1)- "You can turn it off if you pay for it" (this ignores that you can't really buy enterprise and is malicious behavior in general, ignores that you can't turn stuff off in pro- but now it ALSO ignores that EVEN ENTERPRISE HAS NO TOGGLES!)
So it's BIG news because it means that even Enterprise is tucked into their botnet.
2)- "But google does this on their phone OS" (this ignores that a phone OS isn't the same as a desktop OS, ignores that phones are pretty terrible at privacy and that this is due to several vendor lock-ins that don't have good outs, ignores that there's phones that DON'T do this, and is just generally so full of false equivalences that it's ludicrous on the face of it)
3)- "I have nothing to hide / you're old if you care" (this is something a marketer would say, not a rational person- no one actually wants to buy or use spy tech)
4)- 'You can turn it off" (this article is the latest showing that NO YOU CANNOT- someone will post one of the scripts or spybots or whatever that purports to disable it, and might even, but if you need some crazy tech solution to get your OS to MAYBE not spy on you ludicrously, it's a terrible OS)
So finding it in Enterprise destroys (1) even further, and is interesting for (4) as well.
I'm sure it won't stop them shills shilling though.
This isn't a gun article, it's a Libertarian article.
It's certainly news for nerds (though I doubt it matters).
This is a long standing online push, going back to just a few years after the web started, and seeing it click over to its goal number is certainly interesting. Libertarians generally have little political relevance unless they are extraordinarily rich, and this is entirely due to their reasonably small numbers. Left leaning Libertarians can often be persuaded to vote for Democrats, who trash some of their freedoms but are generally thought of as "good enough", and the more common right leaning Libertarian often votes for a Republican for similar reasons. This reduces their relevance even more.
So putting a few in a small place might actually have interesting effects. Certainly this experiment must be deliberate, and must be voluntary.
I've thought this has been interesting since proposed.
And there's about three end games: the first is that they move there and tick everyone off because they aren't just Libertarians, they are the sort that will move to a state for their beliefs, making them almost assuredly meddlesome- we'll get some lulz stories. The second is that they matter and convert people, in which case New Hampshire doesn't just become a beacon for liberty, it actually becomes a social experiment- many libertarians sound like utopians, so what happens if they actually get to make some policies you don't see elsewhere? Much like cannabis in Colorado, it could challenge the notion of "if you do X then Y will happen, so we'd better ban X in 50 states". That would be a huge boon, and New Hampshire would either get the benefits first, or pay the consequences first.
The third and final one is probably the most likely- they don't make much of a difference. They get some silly law passed about how internet distributors work, and they all have a wall of guns in their homes, but the state just doesn't change much. This is the least amusing, beneficial, or detrimental, and it would tell us what many secretly suspect- if you want to change politics at all, you need to go to a new place or carve up on an old one, meaning either exploration or conquest. There's a big barrier to exploration, and libertarians are opposed to conquest, so that would probably be bad news for ANY group seeking peaceful change of laws by engineered move.
But regardless, we should get some awesome headlines soon!
The "interfere with other apps" is because a good adblocker can block ads not just in your browser but everywhere on the box- they can deny web connections cleverly, so apps can't refresh their ad-pile.
On ios, none of these adblockers exist (well, maybe with a jailbreak)- the content blockers function in the ones that use safari to render (so web pages).
Android also offers other ways to get things like this on your phone.
It's just two radically different approaches. Google can behave like a general purpose computer with some fighting, but then you are worried about the standard drama of adminning your box. Apple fights this hard- it takes a jailbreak to actually do that kind of thing there, but they aren't hostile to ad blockers in the same way, even creating a class of application that can deny connections just for it.
In fairness, reality itself is making a lot less sense than usual. Did you catch them girls at the Trump rally singing "Deal from strength or get crushed every time?"
Cracked (reasonably liberal site) has a summary, but the mere fact that it is happening is a pretty serious glitch in the Matrix.
Well, much like you aren't allowed to build a bomb, but you ARE allowed access to gasoline, you're of COURSE permitted the PERL implementation. You're much more likely to self immolate than do damage to anything else, after all...
This is absolutely a concern. The canary here will be to see if ICANN starts fucking with "hate groups". If they get away with that, expect to have work around them, because the only thing they'll be willing to deal with is pictures of cats and other uncontroversial topics.
Greenpeace has assuredly done some sketchy shit to get shocking scenes. They are also undeniably highly biased. Therefore it's sarcasm because Greenpeace is very one sided. Plus, it's using the Fox news "Fair and Balanced", which means that the poster is mocking Fox as well as Greenpeace.
I mean, if you ask them, sure. In practice, if you had that much solar power, you'd be reducing the total need for THEIR infrastructure. Given that it's an infrastructure fee, and in this hypothetical they need less infrastructure, it could go either way. Maybe have a third party do the analysis, eh? Someone not known to the power companies.
I'm not totally convinced of that, but I am mostly convinced of it.
There was a time when there were multiple competing power grids. Naturally, they ran everything that they could differently. Would a standards winner have emerged, given time? I think it's unfair to say no, but it's possible.
The point I'm making is that when you are dealing with utility style monopolies, it's reasonable to expect the government to address their grievances in much greater detail than in other industries. Utilities are mostly shielded from market forces, and absolutely shielded from startups with disruptive tech. When you have a problem with the way they are doing something, you MUST go to the government, as they are the ones setting all the rules that are played by.
But it's in ALL of their self interest to pretend that they can't use solar power generated, so as to make more money. It's interesting that a few places have the ability for companies to compete, but whether power you generate midday can credit you at night is absolutely something that the government needs to make happen, or it will never.
Ok, so the issue here is that, by government fiat, there's only ONE supplier- a utility. This means that there's no "market" at this level. You get power from one guy.
It's in the interest of that one guy for you NOT have solar panels. That reduces the money that they can make off of you. So as you'd expect, they've pushed back at every level- utilities have claimed that there's no safe way to have a hookup, that they can't possibly use the energy you can put back on the grid, etc. Whatever they can to make solar not profitable.
"Retail net metering" generally means that if you pay X for a kilowatt hour, then if you make a kilowatt hour you don't use at noon (say because you are at work), and are putting the power back on the network, then when you need a kilowatt later that day, that you were credited X, and now you spend X. You were credited the RETAIL cost of it, and then when you used the kilowatt hour later, you spend the RETAIL cost of it- and ended up even.
With lesser standards- such as wholesale- the power you don't use is only fractionally credited to you. So
> none of us would ever, EVER own a firearm complicated with failure points (aka "electronics"), which, I will add, could easily be jammed.
Why would you never EVER own it? If this existed, it would be one more layer of protection so some kid can't shoot himself or some other kid. Keep in mind, this would be in addition to your real guns.
A lot of men keep a gun at hand in the case of a home invasion. A home invasion is very unlikely, but it's still a rather common by cases of defensive gun use. Seems like smart guns would be reasonably helpful here, at least to some households.
My only concern is that it would become mandatory. It took liberals in this thread essentially no time to go from "this tech is interesting" to "make this mandatory and ban all the other guns", which, I mean, is what they do. I can't blame them for that, I don't think they can help it. But I'd be interested in this if we had some solid laws preventing some turkey from trying this predictable gun grab in a few years. I think everyone knows that if *everyone* was using these smart guns, the police would have a little button that would disable all "civilian" guns in a mile radius faster than you can say "papers, please!".
If you have a gun, adding a smart gun to that collection is pretty wise. It's yet another layer of security to prevent the gun from being used by a child, or used against you. It's a definite feature- every layer of security has statistical effects, after all.
The concern is that, once smart guns are around, that someone will try to ban normal guns, pointing to smart guns and being allied with a fascist judge who will check the boxes. As long as we have some assurance that this isn't in the cards, you'll see decent adoption of the technology, and it will assuredly have some beneficial effects on number of accidents per year.
If they have ALL the encryption broken, they can just have all the data. I'm not even mad.
A functioning attack on Serpent 256, AES, and Twofish would be a landmark accomplishment, because it would imply that there's some fundamental parts of math known only to the attacker.
Slashdot Mirror
He's talking about apport, I'm pretty sure. I responded to that. He's also pretending that a box you can uncheck using a program you can disable or uninstall in one single distro out of hundreds (and not even the most common one) is the same or worse than Microsoft dumping data that only they can decrypt over thousands of connections silently.
> Ubuntu is worse, actually.
Lie.
>Not only does it send searches,
You can turn off the search send. It's being removed soon. If you care, don't use Ubuntu, use any other Linux. There's no one else providing distros of Windows to run to when Microsoft fails. They have failed.
> but each individual library or package can phone home to a different developer with different information collected about your system
First, it asks you each time, you can uncheck a box.
Second, here's your fix:
apt-get remove apport
Did you want to keep it around? Edit /etc/default/apport and change "enabled" to 0. Then it won't launch on boot.
It's optional, it can be disabled, and it asks you each fucking time anyway.
> There's also more incentive for Linux software to monetize user activity
There's no incentive for Linux (a kernel) to do this. There's no incentive for Linux as a general OS to do this. There is incentive for SOME companies that have Linux distributions to try to "monetize users", but you can, of course, simply not use their products- because Linux is a whole set of distributions.
Are you done with the fud? We'll never know AC, we'll never know.
You can trust any Linux governed by copyright law (so not like the DPRK Linux, but basically everything else). You can trust any of the open source BSDs. You might be able to trust OS X.
> How does, say, Ubuntu Linux compare to Windows 10?
GTFO FUD PEDDLER
Ubuntu has an option that can be turned off for ONE fucking search menu. And they are removing it due to negative feedback.
And if you give even a tenth of a fuck about this trivial to delete, soon to be removed default USE FUCKING MINT INSTEAD.
Or Debian, or Fedora, or Arch.
Ubuntu is just one of many Linux distributions. If you don't like something they do, move the fuck on.
> Windows 7, 8, 8.1, and 10
Telemetry has been pushed to 7, 8, and 8.1, but you can absolutely remove those updates. Without telemetry they behave as they did before- somewhat sketchy because they are Microsoft, but nowhere NEAR what we see in 10.
The Microsoft shills normally go down one of these paths:
1)- "You can turn it off if you pay for it"
(this ignores that you can't really buy enterprise and is malicious behavior in general, ignores that you can't turn stuff off in pro- but now it ALSO ignores that EVEN ENTERPRISE HAS NO TOGGLES!)
So it's BIG news because it means that even Enterprise is tucked into their botnet.
2)- "But google does this on their phone OS"
(this ignores that a phone OS isn't the same as a desktop OS, ignores that phones are pretty terrible at privacy and that this is due to several vendor lock-ins that don't have good outs, ignores that there's phones that DON'T do this, and is just generally so full of false equivalences that it's ludicrous on the face of it)
3)- "I have nothing to hide / you're old if you care"
(this is something a marketer would say, not a rational person- no one actually wants to buy or use spy tech)
4)- 'You can turn it off"
(this article is the latest showing that NO YOU CANNOT- someone will post one of the scripts or spybots or whatever that purports to disable it, and might even, but if you need some crazy tech solution to get your OS to MAYBE not spy on you ludicrously, it's a terrible OS)
So finding it in Enterprise destroys (1) even further, and is interesting for (4) as well.
I'm sure it won't stop them shills shilling though.
....or it can unavoidably probe every fucking network port on an 8 port system, Solaris style. PXE boot? PXE boot? PXE? PXE? omg staaaaahp
Everything I see in a server room takes like five damned minutes to even start loading the OS.
This isn't a gun article, it's a Libertarian article.
It's certainly news for nerds (though I doubt it matters).
This is a long standing online push, going back to just a few years after the web started, and seeing it click over to its goal number is certainly interesting. Libertarians generally have little political relevance unless they are extraordinarily rich, and this is entirely due to their reasonably small numbers. Left leaning Libertarians can often be persuaded to vote for Democrats, who trash some of their freedoms but are generally thought of as "good enough", and the more common right leaning Libertarian often votes for a Republican for similar reasons. This reduces their relevance even more.
So putting a few in a small place might actually have interesting effects. Certainly this experiment must be deliberate, and must be voluntary.
I've thought this has been interesting since proposed.
And there's about three end games: the first is that they move there and tick everyone off because they aren't just Libertarians, they are the sort that will move to a state for their beliefs, making them almost assuredly meddlesome- we'll get some lulz stories. The second is that they matter and convert people, in which case New Hampshire doesn't just become a beacon for liberty, it actually becomes a social experiment- many libertarians sound like utopians, so what happens if they actually get to make some policies you don't see elsewhere? Much like cannabis in Colorado, it could challenge the notion of "if you do X then Y will happen, so we'd better ban X in 50 states". That would be a huge boon, and New Hampshire would either get the benefits first, or pay the consequences first.
The third and final one is probably the most likely- they don't make much of a difference. They get some silly law passed about how internet distributors work, and they all have a wall of guns in their homes, but the state just doesn't change much. This is the least amusing, beneficial, or detrimental, and it would tell us what many secretly suspect- if you want to change politics at all, you need to go to a new place or carve up on an old one, meaning either exploration or conquest. There's a big barrier to exploration, and libertarians are opposed to conquest, so that would probably be bad news for ANY group seeking peaceful change of laws by engineered move.
But regardless, we should get some awesome headlines soon!
The "interfere with other apps" is because a good adblocker can block ads not just in your browser but everywhere on the box- they can deny web connections cleverly, so apps can't refresh their ad-pile.
On ios, none of these adblockers exist (well, maybe with a jailbreak)- the content blockers function in the ones that use safari to render (so web pages).
Android also offers other ways to get things like this on your phone.
It's just two radically different approaches. Google can behave like a general purpose computer with some fighting, but then you are worried about the standard drama of adminning your box. Apple fights this hard- it takes a jailbreak to actually do that kind of thing there, but they aren't hostile to ad blockers in the same way, even creating a class of application that can deny connections just for it.
In fairness, reality itself is making a lot less sense than usual. Did you catch them girls at the Trump rally singing "Deal from strength or get crushed every time?"
Cracked (reasonably liberal site) has a summary, but the mere fact that it is happening is a pretty serious glitch in the Matrix.
http://www.cracked.com/video_1...
Well, much like you aren't allowed to build a bomb, but you ARE allowed access to gasoline, you're of COURSE permitted the PERL implementation. You're much more likely to self immolate than do damage to anything else, after all...
This is absolutely a concern. The canary here will be to see if ICANN starts fucking with "hate groups". If they get away with that, expect to have work around them, because the only thing they'll be willing to deal with is pictures of cats and other uncontroversial topics.
...QWERTY has been failing English typists for over a century!
No, it's not.
Greenpeace has assuredly done some sketchy shit to get shocking scenes. They are also undeniably highly biased. Therefore it's sarcasm because Greenpeace is very one sided. Plus, it's using the Fox news "Fair and Balanced", which means that the poster is mocking Fox as well as Greenpeace.
Not an example of Poe's law.
Nice idea, but might want to make sure it doesn't fall afoul of some WTO stuff.
I mean, if you ask them, sure. In practice, if you had that much solar power, you'd be reducing the total need for THEIR infrastructure. Given that it's an infrastructure fee, and in this hypothetical they need less infrastructure, it could go either way. Maybe have a third party do the analysis, eh? Someone not known to the power companies.
I'm not totally convinced of that, but I am mostly convinced of it.
There was a time when there were multiple competing power grids. Naturally, they ran everything that they could differently. Would a standards winner have emerged, given time? I think it's unfair to say no, but it's possible.
The point I'm making is that when you are dealing with utility style monopolies, it's reasonable to expect the government to address their grievances in much greater detail than in other industries. Utilities are mostly shielded from market forces, and absolutely shielded from startups with disruptive tech. When you have a problem with the way they are doing something, you MUST go to the government, as they are the ones setting all the rules that are played by.
But it's in ALL of their self interest to pretend that they can't use solar power generated, so as to make more money. It's interesting that a few places have the ability for companies to compete, but whether power you generate midday can credit you at night is absolutely something that the government needs to make happen, or it will never.
> This should be settled by the market.
wat
Ok, so the issue here is that, by government fiat, there's only ONE supplier- a utility. This means that there's no "market" at this level. You get power from one guy.
It's in the interest of that one guy for you NOT have solar panels. That reduces the money that they can make off of you. So as you'd expect, they've pushed back at every level- utilities have claimed that there's no safe way to have a hookup, that they can't possibly use the energy you can put back on the grid, etc. Whatever they can to make solar not profitable.
"Retail net metering" generally means that if you pay X for a kilowatt hour, then if you make a kilowatt hour you don't use at noon (say because you are at work), and are putting the power back on the network, then when you need a kilowatt later that day, that you were credited X, and now you spend X. You were credited the RETAIL cost of it, and then when you used the kilowatt hour later, you spend the RETAIL cost of it- and ended up even.
With lesser standards- such as wholesale- the power you don't use is only fractionally credited to you. So
Not being from New Jersey, I didn't know about this. That's ludicrous.
> If you've been through the level of training required of Marines,
Thankfully the second amendment overrides the wishes of mewling ACs.
Marksman Rifle:
http://www.fulton-armory.com/f...
Assault Rifle is the M16, the non-assault rifle is the AR-15- plenty of variants of those around.
Pistol (one of a few):
https://us.glock.com/products/...
> none of us would ever, EVER own a firearm complicated with failure points (aka "electronics"), which, I will add, could easily be jammed.
Why would you never EVER own it? If this existed, it would be one more layer of protection so some kid can't shoot himself or some other kid. Keep in mind, this would be in addition to your real guns.
A lot of men keep a gun at hand in the case of a home invasion. A home invasion is very unlikely, but it's still a rather common by cases of defensive gun use. Seems like smart guns would be reasonably helpful here, at least to some households.
My only concern is that it would become mandatory. It took liberals in this thread essentially no time to go from "this tech is interesting" to "make this mandatory and ban all the other guns", which, I mean, is what they do. I can't blame them for that, I don't think they can help it. But I'd be interested in this if we had some solid laws preventing some turkey from trying this predictable gun grab in a few years. I think everyone knows that if *everyone* was using these smart guns, the police would have a little button that would disable all "civilian" guns in a mile radius faster than you can say "papers, please!".
If you have a gun, adding a smart gun to that collection is pretty wise. It's yet another layer of security to prevent the gun from being used by a child, or used against you. It's a definite feature- every layer of security has statistical effects, after all.
The concern is that, once smart guns are around, that someone will try to ban normal guns, pointing to smart guns and being allied with a fascist judge who will check the boxes. As long as we have some assurance that this isn't in the cards, you'll see decent adoption of the technology, and it will assuredly have some beneficial effects on number of accidents per year.
If they have ALL the encryption broken, they can just have all the data. I'm not even mad.
A functioning attack on Serpent 256, AES, and Twofish would be a landmark accomplishment, because it would imply that there's some fundamental parts of math known only to the attacker.
So like, four old laptops that are refurbished, and nothing more recent than that on x86?
I mean, I see your point in principle, but in practice this isn't the type of sacrifice most people can make.