Well unless the submitter is planning on developing iOS/OS X software, perhaps you missed the point about "trying to keep the cost down reasonable" ?
There are such things as VMs, so basic platform isn't too much of a problem. Also, I do most of my Linux programming on a Mac, because I work entirely with scripting languages (Perl, PHP, Python, JavaScript etc.), and it's trivially easy to set up a compatible working environment on OS X.
But you're right - the cost of hardware is very high. The 27" Thunderbolt monitors (and/or iMacs) come with the brand tax applied, as well as some confidence about their construction, quality and engineering. I have 27" iMacs at home and at the office, and I've never had a better display. Now, it needs to be said that my primary reason for getting them was photography (which occupies an increasing amount of my time). For contrast (especially in greyscale) and colour accuracy, I've never seen better, even at these high prices.
If it's true that those Korean 27" monitors really are basically Apples with a couple of dead pixels, then I'd say go for it. Getting a close approximation of an Apple monitor at hundreds of dollars less is still a great deal.
Many of us here have been saying DNT is a bad idea since it first appeared (and often, on slashdot, we've been downmodded for it). The right way to do this is NOT to depend on the good will of the remote side....
What do you mean by 'us', Kemo Sabe?
Okay, seriously: It's almost axiomatic in programming that you never trust your inputs, and you never assume that just because the external party (be it a function, another object, or a completely separate system) says it's going to X, that X will actually happen. So I'm good with the principle so far....
You CAN avoid giving them much data in the first place. You don't have to load their web bugs, their trackers, accept their cookies, or flash objects, and you can obscure your user agent string, and if you're really paranoid, even your IP address.
That's all well and good, but sometimes part of protecting yourself consists of telling someone else to stop doing what they're doing. Instead of just avoiding a particular street because of its dangers, why not roll a cruiser through from time to time and maybe make it clear that certain kinds of behaviour are Not Cool? That won't necessarily make the street safe, but it might serve to make it safer.
It is unfortunate that Do Not Track seems more like politely asking the school bully, 'Please stop taking my lunch money.' But sometimes it's a matter of getting the rule first, and adding teeth to it after the fact. All of this is, however, predicated on making it clear that wanton, indiscriminate data collection is decidedly Not Cool.
It's a first step. A pretty feeble first step, as the story makes clear. But it's a necessary one.
And it goes without saying, don't use bloody Facebook.
For a great many people, that's practically impossible. My employer operates a page where I share administrative duties, but you have to have a personal account in order to be granted admin access. Yes, I know that I'm not compelled to put anything personally incriminating there; I'm just saying that there are social and economic pressures that exist which sometimes make 'bloody Facebook' unavoidable.
Wow, what an unbelievably horrible story. Everyone: we need to send a message to/.'s newest corporate overlords. If you don't have mod points, post a comment saying how shitty this is. Seriously -- one line is fine. If you do have mod points, mod up every comment that says so. I want to see 1,000 comments and 100 +5s by the end of the night. MAYBE they'll notice.
It's particularly annoying because it would actually be cool to have a designated place for die-hard slashdotters to talk about employment issues, good and bad places to work, etc. But that wouldn't work for Dice, because we might end up insulting - or worse, telling the truth about prominent companies. So, our community management team [sic] instead brings us absurdly disingenuous stories about how great their clients are, as long as you have the Right Stuff.
Well, it was Run EMC originally. A Run DMC tribute group that ended up washing out when the LA gangstas took over the music scene, so they moved on to data storage and virtualisation.
All I know is, Wikileak's goals were laudable, their execution questionable, and their Fuhrer is a complete asshole.
Where does that leave them ethically?
Well, Assange is an asshole, no doubt about it. To his credit, however, he does not kill his enemies with drone strikes, nor ambush journalists with helicopter rocket attacks. His organisation keeps its workings secret to protect whistle-blowers from persecution. The organisations he assails tend to keep their workings secret to protect themselves from prosecution. The differences may be too slight for some, but they're enough for me.
I don't think science contradicts or even tries to contradict the existence of God.
No, to be precise: science doesn't require a God of any kind to be complete.
Some people construe this to mean that they can keep God in one pocket and science in the other. But science is much more dangerous than that. In rationalising a space between the two, people implicitly accept Aristotle's theory of the primum movens (or, unmoved mover). In other words, we can regress evolution, or cosmology or what have you back beyond the point of measurement, and beyond that resides the godhead. So Big Bang is okay, because God lit the fuse, as it were.
But the fly in the ointment is that you can actually push science past Big Bang and it still remains coherent (it's not easily testable, but it's theoretically coherent). Likewise, you can reverse engineer forces and causes of the evolutionary process past the origin of life. In other words, science doesn't just end where God begins, and vice versa. No, science is complete - that is, it can conceive of the universe in its totality independently of any conception whatsoever of a Creator.
... Which doesn't leave a lot of space for God, if you're honest about it.
(And God, for his part, says, 'I am that I am' and plagues me with boils. So, swings and roundabouts, I guess.)
The GPL and the Git community are going to break Mr. Softy somewhere around step #2.
Yep. First it's Git, then it's Microsoft GCC, then there's the Apache Solution Server and before too long they're selling Aladdin - The Microsoft LAMP Solution.
It's my goddamn computer, my goddamn hardware, and it's MINE. I will run any fucking operating system I goddamn well please on it, and if Microsoft doesn't like that, they can FUCK THEMSELVES right in the GODDAMN EAR.
Or you can just disable it...
What, and miss the chance of seeing Ballmer fuck himself in the goddam ear?
If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?
Well, if we're being completely utilitarian about things, then no, it doesn't matter. But it also doesn't matter to me that they did contribute, because that didn't benefit me in any way. In a broader context, I'm not sure it matters to many people at all, because the vast majority of sysadmins running Microsoft VMs are using them to run virtualised Windows.
Anyway, if the argument is that Microsoft is a better company now for having learned to come to terms with the GPL, if only to admit, effectively, that it has a right to exist... well, that doesn't carry a lot of weight for me, one way or the other.
BUT... to use this as an argument to further speculate that the MS App Store is more FOSS-friendly than any other... shit, where do I begin?
First, let's be clear that none of the app stores do much at all to help FOSS, though the Google Play store at least doesn't get in the way too much. Second, while I don't have anything against Microsoft's store, this particular line sounds like a cynical and rather pathetic appeal for us FOSS developers to like them, à la Sally Field. My first reaction to this line is to flinch and check the wings to make sure Ballmer isn't hiding there, warming up for another monkey dance.
Why do I shy like this? Because like it or not, MS have earned their reputation for duplicity, amoral behaviour and outright dishonesty. It's actually a little pathetic to see them trying to make nice, kind of like meeting the school bully stocking the shelves at $BIGBOX and watching him squirm and toady as you pick out a new $3500 home entertainment system[*].
------------- [*] Happened to me once. It wasn't as satisfying as I thought it would be. In fact, it saddened me.
The logic is (almost) sound. I see a few points of failure here...
Not really. It's a moot point, anyway, because you absorb the cost of keeping the tills stocked and managed right up until the moment when you do away with cash altogether - something that cannot realistically happen any time in the foreseeable future.
* A typical register will have something like $50 in change sitting in there, with maybe $50 as backup for every two registers or so.
Well, I haven't managed a till in a long time, but back in my day $200 was the standard amount per till. The rule of thumb is that you need to provide change for one of the largest typical currency amount (say, a $50) and two of the most common bills (typically a $20), then you need coin enough to provide change for most of the day, because the majority of people pay you with bills and get coins in return.
But your point is valid: The ratio of cash in the float to overall cash flow is laughably small.
* CC transactions often take just as long, if not longer than cash. The transaction has to be authorized before you're done, grocery purchases can be half-and-half (say, half debit, half EBT), etc.
This is a big point. Even if you did somehow manage to remove cash entirely from the picture, you still have a pretty high overhead administering the purchases. The number of tills doesn't decrease, nor does checking the integrity of your transactions. The manner of abuse may differ, but the temptation to steal doesn't diminish. So you still have to take care to scrutinise both customer and staff carefully.
Back on point: Surcharges are an improvement, all things considered, because it allows more transparency in your purchasing decision. If you think retailers don't factor the cost of credit card fees into the purchase price, you're sadly mistaken. Allowing them to show you how much of the purchase price is theirs, and how much is the credit card company's, well... that's a good thing. Or it will be, if it helps us end the predatory nature of transaction fees.
Unfortunately for Ahmed his method of verifying that the problem had been fixed was de facto a DOS attack:
“The attack made the College portal extremely unresponsive for its thousands of users. Had it not been countered, it would have put the College portal out of order for the entire students and teachers population of Dawson...."
I have a real problem with this quote. If I were running a relatively high-volume service (and apparently College Portal's user base is somewhere around 250,000) and a single user were capable of DOSing the entire service, I'd characterise that as a flaw in my service.
I might not thank the kid who brought it to my attention, but I sure wouldn't trumpet the fact that my service is as brittle as all that.
I think the CEGEP's action - the decision to punish the kid for poking his proverbial nose in where it wasn't welcome - really is out of line with the way of the Internet world. If it were up to me, I'd give him a pretty strong tongue-lashing, saying 'Yes, you found an important vulnerability, but for your own sake if no one else's, never ever pen test an online service without permission. Good job, and don't let me catch you doing it again.'
... But that would definitely be the end of it. He's obviously a bright young man who has the ability to earn some solid geek cred, and deserves every opportunity to apply his skills properly.
Look, this article is just another BS anti-net neutrality argument showing how the poor internet carriers can't afford to support rich Netflix's content. Powerful Netlix is strong arming the little Internet providers (like, ahem, Time Warner) into carrying all of that expensive streaming video and cutting off ISPs who won't play ball.
It's worse than that. The language in that spiel is so loaded it's practically impossible even to figure out what the fuck the man is complaining about. I kept reading it, hoping that at some point the guy's argument would make even the slightest bit of sense, but every single descriptive element of the article (and I use that term loosely) was so charged with invective that he wasn't even able to make his own case.
The entire piece is just a poorly composed diatribe without any logical basis whatsoever. Honestly, if this is how the larger carriers choose to defend themselves, they deserve to lose.
It happened a lot at the end of WWII. The island of Espiritu Santo in the South Pacific has a popular dive spot known as Million Dollar Point, where the US dumped hundreds of vehicles and crates of equipment into the ocean rather than ship it home. The story goes that Britain and France refused an offer to sell the materiel at 6 cents on the dollar because they thought the US would have no choice in the end.but to give it to them. That US general in charge ordered everything dumped in a fit of pique. Ah, colonial days. Such fun!
We applaud the ingenuity of the folks who worked this out and the hard work they did to document it. We’ll not guarantee these approaches will be there in future releases.
Translation: Thank you for carefully documenting how you jailbroke our new operating system. Your documentation will help us close that hole, even though it poses no security risk.
Al Jazeera is probably no better (or worse) than any of the american news networks.
Al Jazeera are vastly better than American news networks. Vastly. First and foremost, they actually report on things that do not directly concern the USA. And when they do report on events in which the US is involved, the consider other perspectives, giving equal weight.
If you want news from Africa, Central or South America, from the Asia-Pacific region - or hell, anywhere East of Iran - Al Jazeera is your best possible source. They have a great network of solid, professional journalists. They also recruit widely from outside the Beltway when bringing in outside analysis. Rather than balance, they tend to rely on expertise. The tone of their interview/discussion shows is respectful but quite pointed. Their interviewers generally avoid 'gotcha' questions, instead trying to legitimately present the ramifications of current events.
As an example, if you want to understand the current tension between Islamism and progressivism in Egypt, there is no other source that even comes close. People who claim they are apologists for Islamic fundamentalism are just... wrong. Yes, they give time to the Muslim Brotherhood, because they're the largest faction in the fucking government right now. You simply cannot claim to understand the news if you ignore them.
To use a less charged example, Al Jazeera's coverage of China's expansion into sub-Saharan Africa is simply world class. They don't weight their analysis with geopolitical or ideological bias, but neither do they pull any punches when demonstrating the economic, social and political tensions that have arisen as a result. Most refreshingly, their reporting is based on good old investigative journalism. They report from the factories, warehouses and marketplaces where the effects are most vivid. To my limited knowledge, no other news service has even come close.
Al Jazeera does have a blind spot. There is virtually no mention of any bad news originating from Qatar, whose royal family sponsors them. They give more time to Libya, Egypt and Syria than to Bahrain and Iran (which is a short missile ride across the water). There is virtually no mention whatsoever of the US presence in Qatar or Bahrain, and no criticism whatsoever. But the unspoken diktat from the Crown Prince seems to be 'here's a short list of things you cannot talk about, but you are free to do what you like in every other respect.' It's not a perfect situation by a long stretch, but it's better than the global blind spot that US networks have to anything that doesn't impact their interests.
Unfortunately, that's not a particularly strong supporting argument...
Viewed from the outside world, the US television media establishment is a sad, sad joke. I travel a lot in the Asia-Pacific region, and though I keep trying, I cannot watch CNN for more than a couple of minutes at a time. The other news channels don't even get a look in. It's the BBC World Service, Al Jazeera, or nothing, I'm sorry to say.
True enough, but the means by which they achieve this goal is by creating an environment in which internet access is a commodity. As long as your internet is rationed, so too is their access to your data. So the question becomes: 'Is better internet worth this price, and, more to the point, is it preferable to what I have today?'
Slashdot Mirror
Well unless the submitter is planning on developing iOS/OS X software, perhaps you missed the point about "trying to keep the cost down reasonable" ?
There are such things as VMs, so basic platform isn't too much of a problem. Also, I do most of my Linux programming on a Mac, because I work entirely with scripting languages (Perl, PHP, Python, JavaScript etc.), and it's trivially easy to set up a compatible working environment on OS X.
But you're right - the cost of hardware is very high. The 27" Thunderbolt monitors (and/or iMacs) come with the brand tax applied, as well as some confidence about their construction, quality and engineering. I have 27" iMacs at home and at the office, and I've never had a better display. Now, it needs to be said that my primary reason for getting them was photography (which occupies an increasing amount of my time). For contrast (especially in greyscale) and colour accuracy, I've never seen better, even at these high prices.
If it's true that those Korean 27" monitors really are basically Apples with a couple of dead pixels, then I'd say go for it. Getting a close approximation of an Apple monitor at hundreds of dollars less is still a great deal.
Many of us here have been saying DNT is a bad idea since it first appeared (and often, on slashdot, we've been downmodded for it). The right way to do this is NOT to depend on the good will of the remote side....
What do you mean by 'us', Kemo Sabe?
Okay, seriously: It's almost axiomatic in programming that you never trust your inputs, and you never assume that just because the external party (be it a function, another object, or a completely separate system) says it's going to X, that X will actually happen. So I'm good with the principle so far....
You CAN avoid giving them much data in the first place. You don't have to load their web bugs, their trackers, accept their cookies, or flash objects, and you can obscure your user agent string, and if you're really paranoid, even your IP address.
That's all well and good, but sometimes part of protecting yourself consists of telling someone else to stop doing what they're doing. Instead of just avoiding a particular street because of its dangers, why not roll a cruiser through from time to time and maybe make it clear that certain kinds of behaviour are Not Cool? That won't necessarily make the street safe, but it might serve to make it safer.
It is unfortunate that Do Not Track seems more like politely asking the school bully, 'Please stop taking my lunch money.' But sometimes it's a matter of getting the rule first, and adding teeth to it after the fact. All of this is, however, predicated on making it clear that wanton, indiscriminate data collection is decidedly Not Cool.
It's a first step. A pretty feeble first step, as the story makes clear. But it's a necessary one.
And it goes without saying, don't use bloody Facebook.
For a great many people, that's practically impossible. My employer operates a page where I share administrative duties, but you have to have a personal account in order to be granted admin access. Yes, I know that I'm not compelled to put anything personally incriminating there; I'm just saying that there are social and economic pressures that exist which sometimes make 'bloody Facebook' unavoidable.
So... what's the pre-flip good side of the industry's sway?
It's win/win: Heads I win; tails you lose.
You weren't looking for a downside, were you?
Wow, what an unbelievably horrible story. Everyone: we need to send a message to /.'s newest corporate overlords. If you don't have mod points, post a comment saying how shitty this is. Seriously -- one line is fine. If you do have mod points, mod up every comment that says so. I want to see 1,000 comments and 100 +5s by the end of the night. MAYBE they'll notice.
It's particularly annoying because it would actually be cool to have a designated place for die-hard slashdotters to talk about employment issues, good and bad places to work, etc. But that wouldn't work for Dice, because we might end up insulting - or worse, telling the truth about prominent companies. So, our community management team [sic] instead brings us absurdly disingenuous stories about how great their clients are, as long as you have the Right Stuff.
Who the eff is EMC???
Well, it was Run EMC originally. A Run DMC tribute group that ended up washing out when the LA gangstas took over the music scene, so they moved on to data storage and virtualisation.
...give as a fuck who this guy says? Community manager?
In Soviet Slashdotistan, community manages you!*
* "It's funny because it's true." - Homer Simpson
I forgot to tell you that in France it's illegal to sit on your couch with your wife at night. You have to be with your mistress.
Tragically, after the first two weeks of your liaison, your mistress is legally required to act bored and uncaring, and read Simone de Beauvoir.
All I know is, Wikileak's goals were laudable, their execution questionable, and their Fuhrer is a complete asshole. Where does that leave them ethically?
Well, Assange is an asshole, no doubt about it. To his credit, however, he does not kill his enemies with drone strikes, nor ambush journalists with helicopter rocket attacks. His organisation keeps its workings secret to protect whistle-blowers from persecution. The organisations he assails tend to keep their workings secret to protect themselves from prosecution. The differences may be too slight for some, but they're enough for me.
I don't think science contradicts or even tries to contradict the existence of God.
No, to be precise: science doesn't require a God of any kind to be complete.
Some people construe this to mean that they can keep God in one pocket and science in the other. But science is much more dangerous than that. In rationalising a space between the two, people implicitly accept Aristotle's theory of the primum movens (or, unmoved mover). In other words, we can regress evolution, or cosmology or what have you back beyond the point of measurement, and beyond that resides the godhead. So Big Bang is okay, because God lit the fuse, as it were.
But the fly in the ointment is that you can actually push science past Big Bang and it still remains coherent (it's not easily testable, but it's theoretically coherent). Likewise, you can reverse engineer forces and causes of the evolutionary process past the origin of life. In other words, science doesn't just end where God begins, and vice versa. No, science is complete - that is, it can conceive of the universe in its totality independently of any conception whatsoever of a Creator.
... Which doesn't leave a lot of space for God, if you're honest about it.
(And God, for his part, says, 'I am that I am' and plagues me with boils. So, swings and roundabouts, I guess.)
If it's the summery (and I use that term loosely)....
Indeed you do.
The GPL and the Git community are going to break Mr. Softy somewhere around step #2.
Yep. First it's Git, then it's Microsoft GCC, then there's the Apache Solution Server and before too long they're selling Aladdin - The Microsoft LAMP Solution.
"New LAMPs for old! New LAMPs for old!"
ducks, runs....
It's my goddamn computer, my goddamn hardware, and it's MINE. I will run any fucking operating system I goddamn well please on it, and if Microsoft doesn't like that, they can FUCK THEMSELVES right in the GODDAMN EAR.
Or you can just disable it...
What, and miss the chance of seeing Ballmer fuck himself in the goddam ear?
Shyeah....
If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?
Well, if we're being completely utilitarian about things, then no, it doesn't matter. But it also doesn't matter to me that they did contribute, because that didn't benefit me in any way. In a broader context, I'm not sure it matters to many people at all, because the vast majority of sysadmins running Microsoft VMs are using them to run virtualised Windows.
Anyway, if the argument is that Microsoft is a better company now for having learned to come to terms with the GPL, if only to admit, effectively, that it has a right to exist... well, that doesn't carry a lot of weight for me, one way or the other.
BUT... to use this as an argument to further speculate that the MS App Store is more FOSS-friendly than any other... shit, where do I begin?
First, let's be clear that none of the app stores do much at all to help FOSS, though the Google Play store at least doesn't get in the way too much. Second, while I don't have anything against Microsoft's store, this particular line sounds like a cynical and rather pathetic appeal for us FOSS developers to like them, à la Sally Field. My first reaction to this line is to flinch and check the wings to make sure Ballmer isn't hiding there, warming up for another monkey dance.
Why do I shy like this? Because like it or not, MS have earned their reputation for duplicity, amoral behaviour and outright dishonesty. It's actually a little pathetic to see them trying to make nice, kind of like meeting the school bully stocking the shelves at $BIGBOX and watching him squirm and toady as you pick out a new $3500 home entertainment system[*].
-------------
[*] Happened to me once. It wasn't as satisfying as I thought it would be. In fact, it saddened me.
The logic is (almost) sound. I see a few points of failure here...
Not really. It's a moot point, anyway, because you absorb the cost of keeping the tills stocked and managed right up until the moment when you do away with cash altogether - something that cannot realistically happen any time in the foreseeable future.
* A typical register will have something like $50 in change sitting in there, with maybe $50 as backup for every two registers or so.
Well, I haven't managed a till in a long time, but back in my day $200 was the standard amount per till. The rule of thumb is that you need to provide change for one of the largest typical currency amount (say, a $50) and two of the most common bills (typically a $20), then you need coin enough to provide change for most of the day, because the majority of people pay you with bills and get coins in return.
But your point is valid: The ratio of cash in the float to overall cash flow is laughably small.
* CC transactions often take just as long, if not longer than cash. The transaction has to be authorized before you're done, grocery purchases can be half-and-half (say, half debit, half EBT), etc.
This is a big point. Even if you did somehow manage to remove cash entirely from the picture, you still have a pretty high overhead administering the purchases. The number of tills doesn't decrease, nor does checking the integrity of your transactions. The manner of abuse may differ, but the temptation to steal doesn't diminish. So you still have to take care to scrutinise both customer and staff carefully.
Back on point: Surcharges are an improvement, all things considered, because it allows more transparency in your purchasing decision. If you think retailers don't factor the cost of credit card fees into the purchase price, you're sadly mistaken. Allowing them to show you how much of the purchase price is theirs, and how much is the credit card company's, well... that's a good thing. Or it will be, if it helps us end the predatory nature of transaction fees.
Unfortunately for Ahmed his method of verifying that the problem had been fixed was de facto a DOS attack: “The attack made the College portal extremely unresponsive for its thousands of users. Had it not been countered, it would have put the College portal out of order for the entire students and teachers population of Dawson...."
I have a real problem with this quote. If I were running a relatively high-volume service (and apparently College Portal's user base is somewhere around 250,000) and a single user were capable of DOSing the entire service, I'd characterise that as a flaw in my service.
I might not thank the kid who brought it to my attention, but I sure wouldn't trumpet the fact that my service is as brittle as all that.
I think the CEGEP's action - the decision to punish the kid for poking his proverbial nose in where it wasn't welcome - really is out of line with the way of the Internet world. If it were up to me, I'd give him a pretty strong tongue-lashing, saying 'Yes, you found an important vulnerability, but for your own sake if no one else's, never ever pen test an online service without permission. Good job, and don't let me catch you doing it again.'
... But that would definitely be the end of it. He's obviously a bright young man who has the ability to earn some solid geek cred, and deserves every opportunity to apply his skills properly.
As a surgeon, does he really think it's a good idea to replace the "Guy Hingston bankrupt" autocomplete with "Guy Hingston lawsuit"?
Well, bear in mind that this is a guy who's basically called up the national media and proclaimed, 'I Google myself!'
Look, this article is just another BS anti-net neutrality argument showing how the poor internet carriers can't afford to support rich Netflix's content. Powerful Netlix is strong arming the little Internet providers (like, ahem, Time Warner) into carrying all of that expensive streaming video and cutting off ISPs who won't play ball.
It's worse than that. The language in that spiel is so loaded it's practically impossible even to figure out what the fuck the man is complaining about. I kept reading it, hoping that at some point the guy's argument would make even the slightest bit of sense, but every single descriptive element of the article (and I use that term loosely) was so charged with invective that he wasn't even able to make his own case.
The entire piece is just a poorly composed diatribe without any logical basis whatsoever. Honestly, if this is how the larger carriers choose to defend themselves, they deserve to lose.
I pity the foo that can't get into a bar.
At last, we arrive at the quux of the pwoblem.
Ohh, good idea. Give away shit copies of your work, then no one will want to steal your real work.
That's just batfuck crazy. Let's go back to "entertainment". If/when you entertain the people, the people will reward you.
Seconded. Nothing drives me crazier than people who think anti-features build any kind of goodwill, ever.
It's a bit like serving free draft but making customers pay for the bartender to stop pissing in it....
... then again, most of you are Americans, so you would never know the difference.
It happened a lot at the end of WWII. The island of Espiritu Santo in the South Pacific has a popular dive spot known as Million Dollar Point, where the US dumped hundreds of vehicles and crates of equipment into the ocean rather than ship it home. The story goes that Britain and France refused an offer to sell the materiel at 6 cents on the dollar because they thought the US would have no choice in the end.but to give it to them. That US general in charge ordered everything dumped in a fit of pique. Ah, colonial days. Such fun!
Huawei also reported its routers face a similar vulnerability.
You should win the Internets for the day, but tragically your post is too far down to get noticed....
... And worse, some copy-catting smartass with an acute sense of irony just copied and pasted it way up top.... Oh, hang on - that was me. 8^)
We applaud the ingenuity of the folks who worked this out and the hard work they did to document it. We’ll not guarantee these approaches will be there in future releases.
Translation: Thank you for carefully documenting how you jailbroke our new operating system. Your documentation will help us close that hole, even though it poses no security risk.
Also, now we know where to put the crocodiles.
Al Jazeera is probably no better (or worse) than any of the american news networks.
Al Jazeera are vastly better than American news networks. Vastly. First and foremost, they actually report on things that do not directly concern the USA. And when they do report on events in which the US is involved, the consider other perspectives, giving equal weight.
If you want news from Africa, Central or South America, from the Asia-Pacific region - or hell, anywhere East of Iran - Al Jazeera is your best possible source. They have a great network of solid, professional journalists. They also recruit widely from outside the Beltway when bringing in outside analysis. Rather than balance, they tend to rely on expertise. The tone of their interview/discussion shows is respectful but quite pointed. Their interviewers generally avoid 'gotcha' questions, instead trying to legitimately present the ramifications of current events.
As an example, if you want to understand the current tension between Islamism and progressivism in Egypt, there is no other source that even comes close. People who claim they are apologists for Islamic fundamentalism are just... wrong. Yes, they give time to the Muslim Brotherhood, because they're the largest faction in the fucking government right now. You simply cannot claim to understand the news if you ignore them.
To use a less charged example, Al Jazeera's coverage of China's expansion into sub-Saharan Africa is simply world class. They don't weight their analysis with geopolitical or ideological bias, but neither do they pull any punches when demonstrating the economic, social and political tensions that have arisen as a result. Most refreshingly, their reporting is based on good old investigative journalism. They report from the factories, warehouses and marketplaces where the effects are most vivid. To my limited knowledge, no other news service has even come close.
Al Jazeera does have a blind spot. There is virtually no mention of any bad news originating from Qatar, whose royal family sponsors them. They give more time to Libya, Egypt and Syria than to Bahrain and Iran (which is a short missile ride across the water). There is virtually no mention whatsoever of the US presence in Qatar or Bahrain, and no criticism whatsoever. But the unspoken diktat from the Crown Prince seems to be 'here's a short list of things you cannot talk about, but you are free to do what you like in every other respect.' It's not a perfect situation by a long stretch, but it's better than the global blind spot that US networks have to anything that doesn't impact their interests.
Unfortunately, that's not a particularly strong supporting argument ...
Viewed from the outside world, the US television media establishment is a sad, sad joke. I travel a lot in the Asia-Pacific region, and though I keep trying, I cannot watch CNN for more than a couple of minutes at a time. The other news channels don't even get a look in. It's the BBC World Service, Al Jazeera, or nothing, I'm sorry to say.
True enough, but the means by which they achieve this goal is by creating an environment in which internet access is a commodity. As long as your internet is rationed, so too is their access to your data. So the question becomes: 'Is better internet worth this price, and, more to the point, is it preferable to what I have today?'
What they need is something with a really good acronym.
Prevention of Unlimited Peer to Peer Internet Exploitation Strategies Act.
Now, find me a congresscritter that would dare vote against PUPPIES.