Here's a question, if a warrant were required to use a Stingray (it is, in some places) and if the Stringray intercepts everyone's calls, shouldn't the warrant have to cover all of the phones that would be affected? And if that's the case, how could you possibly justify searching the communications of someone you know isn't a suspect?
Imagine if the police said they wanted a copy of every bank statement issued by Bank of America in the last ten years, because they had evidence that the proceeds of a robbery had moved through that bank. Now imagine they wouldn't tell you how long the irrelevant information would be kept or what they would do with it. Of course, in reality, the police don't tell judges that they're using a Stringray, and they certainly don't tell them what extraneous information they'll pick up. They also don't obtain a warrant, but they do get a court order. I wonder if there's even a prohibition against the police department selling the information they collect to a third party.
Unless there are very strict rules about what the police can use the information they captured for and how long they can keep that information, yes, I'd rather let the robber get away. It's only money.
He's incorrect in assuming that anything can be done to stop people from using math. Whatsapp is *just* an app, and anyone can write an app that implements this functionality. That means it's impossible to prevent bad elements (terrorists, criminals, whoever the FBI feels like investigating) from using encryption.
Besides, encryption isn't necessarily required for terrorist attacks. The Paris attackers used burner phones, and I doubt the IRA ever used encryption during the Troubles.
Excellent point. This really does seem like a "vote with your wallet" thing. I've got a Nest cam (purchased when they were still Dropcam). I'll keep it as long as it works, but I'm not going to pay their monthly fee, because I'm not going to pay a company that feels it can just shut it down at any time. I swore off Sony when they took linux support out of the PS3, and I've long since switched from Android to iOS.
Google/Nest shouldn't expect to make much progress in this space, now that people know anything they buy will be abandoned a couple of years later.
Before taking office, he held a 50% interest in a firm that was a creditor to the Icelandic state. He sold that interest to his wife for $1 to avoid disclosing that interest. The holding was hidden in a Panamanian shell company.
This wasn't a "join checking account". I have no idea why you would think it was.
Meanwhile, I'm glad they finally released the update so that I could install it. My iPad kept prompting me to install iOS 9.3 but then told me that it couldn't. Even today, I couldn't use the OTA update mechanism and instead had to plug in the iPad (I almost never connect it to my Mac) and update using iTunes. All because some idiots couldn't remember their iTunes password.
On the European political spectrum, you're right, they're conservatives. However, in the U.S. neither of them are nearly conservative enough to satisfy the Republican base.
Apple is now selling phones they expect their customers to keep for a year and then return to them (the "iPhone Upgrade Program"). They made all sorts of little tweaks to the 6S to increase their resale value so that Apple isn't left with a huge stack of unsellable used phones. I think it's unlikely that you'll see delicate iPhones unless they end that program.
However, it seems like curved glass would be unusable in a case that protects the screen from cracking. I don't use a case for my iPhone, but many, many people do. I'll buy the OLED theory, and I'll buy the smaller bezels. Two things I don't see happening:
1) Curved screen on an iPhone 2) A radical redesign in an "S" model. They might switch to OLED in an S model though.
Now, the iPad series might get curved screens eventually. Those have entirely different usage parameters.
I think a crazy conservative is much more likely to shoot Trump than a liberal. If it's Trump v. Clinton then there's no conservative on the ballot, and the Republican party will be seriously damaged by the campaign. Plus, a good number of Democrats are happy to see Trump wreck the Republican party. I assume Trump will lose a general election badly. If enough Republicans stay home then Trump might not win a single state, and it would take less than that for him to fail to get 270 delegates.
The idea of a heavily armed audience at a brokered Republican convention is a truly terrifying concept. It really could turn into a firefight, and then the national guard has to be called into combat in an American city. And if you think that's ridiculous, consider what you would have said of Trump being the Republican nominee for president two years ago.
This extension does something completely different than what it claims to do, and makes no mention of this extra "feature". That should be enough to have it taken down. Google has made it essentially impossible to install extensions from outside their "store". If Google makes no representations about the quality or safety of the extensions in the store, then why not let sites host the extensions themselves?
There's practically no information in the store to base a decision on other than the name of the author and a description. If extensions were hosted on their own sites you could at least know what organization created the extension by verifying the HTTPS cert of the site. With the store model you're trusting Google to verify the information in the store.
If you're allowing the ad network to place content on your page ("content" meaning anything visible to the user, or code executed by the browser) while disclaiming responsibility for that content, then you've handed control over content to the ad network. It's one of the internet's more unsavory innovations, and practically unheard of anywhere except internet advertising.
What I'm saying is, getting rid of the worst business practice you had doesn't make up for all the other bad practices that you allow to continue (the list is longer than just ads). I frankly don't care, as I use an ad blocker, and I only find myself going to sourceforge for projects that are so old that they haven't been maintained for years.
What I don't understand is, if no editorial control is exercised over the content of the ads, then why isn't there porn? Certainly it's profitable to advertise, so if it's an open submission process then at least some of the ads should be for porn. If not, then someone somewhere must be checking these ads for content. Why aren't they filtering out scams?
I did notice that you're giving an ad network control over content on your page, and yes I did notice that it was Google.
The advertisers aren't creating download buttons to look "native", they're doing it to try to trick the user. You're getting your revenue from fraud. I suppose if you do create a reporting feature, the advertisers will then copy that too, so that instead of reporting the ad the user is led down a rabbit hole of redirects ending with a drive-by exploit.
How about subjecting all ads to human review before they're posted on your site? The flood of fraudulent ads would be reduced to a trickle if they knew each ad would be eyeballed before any users saw them.
As suggested by others, you could also change the design of the site so that the ads would be clearly separated from the content. Why allow advertisers to make their ads look like native content, unless you don't care what advertisers say with your brand?
You've still got fake download buttons, despite Google announcing that such sites will start getting actively blocked by Chrome.
You're getting paid to try to trick people into installing questionable software. Whether it's through "bundled" installers, fake download buttons, or anything else, it's too scummy to be associated with someone else's work.
Want to stop being treated like scum? Try honesty, rather than trying to screw and defraud your users.
My home PC is not something I spend a ton of time maintaining (or I'd be using Linux). Yes, I'm using software for the mirrored RAID, mostly because I was more comfortable I'd be able to swap in a new drive with the software RAID than the hardware RAID, and the hardware RAID configuration was pretty painful. I *was* using the hardware RAID until there was an actual problem and it made it as difficult as possible to diagnose.
The extra time from setting up Windows 10 mostly comes from disabling things. Setting the default browser takes a little longer, there are more pre-installed apps (like "Get Office" and "Get Skype") that have to be uninstalled - which requires finding them in the start menu, you can't search for them if you want to uninstall them. Even if OneDrive isn't configured it still decides to start with Windows and generate notifications, so I turn that off too (usually that gets delayed because it updates while I'm trying to disable it). Plus the trackpad notification. I also clear most of the junk out of the start menu, like Mail, Sports, Finance, and Candy Crush.
I had Windows 8.1 down to about 30 minutes of interactive setup, Windows 10 is about 90 minutes. It would be much longer if we were buying direct from the manufacturer (more shovelware), but all of the PCs I assign out now are Microsoft Signature PCs. Of course Microsoft Signature doesn't exempt you from Microsoft's own shovelware (I really hate the 'Get Skype' app).
Yeah, I found it that update had managed to re-install itself as well, I think I've re-installed it twice. Back in December Microsoft said they were going to start auto-downloading Windows 10 so I disabled automatic updates all together. It's kind of annoying to have to manually install the updates for Windows Defender, but it's worth it.
I'm not upgrading to Windows 10 because I have a software RAID and I have no faith in the upgrade process (and I don't have enough storage to completely back up the RAID). It's my last Windows PC anyway, once Apple comes out with a Thunderbolt 3 iMac I'll move to that plus an external RAID, until then I'm fine with Windows 8.1 Pro. I do wish that they would be a bit more respectful of their users, but I can't very well expect good treatment for someone who's leaving their platform anyway.
I also handle IT purchasing for my company, Windows 10 takes about 3x longer to set up than Windows 8.1 machines did, so I'm hoping given the cost of my time I'll be able to convince management it's finally time to stop buying Windows machines. 90% of the users prefer Macs anyway, and you don't have to pay extra for HD encryption or fight with the printer driver to convince it the printer isn't "offline".
One thing Microsoft really screwed up with on 10: I should be able to disable notifications for an app BEFORE it starts generating them. Right now every time I re-setup a Windows 10 PC I have to get the touchpad notification to trigger so I can disable it.
"GM chief Mary Barra: 'pattern of incompetence' caused fatal recall delay"
GM was completely incompetent, which is why it went out of business. GM was renamed to Motors Liquidation Company and split into trusts to deal with the long term effects of GM's incompetence. The incompetent, decrepit organization was of course transferred to a new corporation, so that it can fail again in a few years.
The new GM made sure it wouldn't be responsible for the legal consequences of the poor quality vehicles it released prior to 2009, so it can't claim the history of the company that manufactured them either. New GM is a brand new company, with the same failed engineering organization.
Who knows, maybe GM will be the Yahoo! of cars, with its ownership stake in various companies worth more than the core business. In any case, Lyft will hopefully do something more productive with GM's money than GM would have done with it.
I'm a self-taught programmer, I've been working full-time salary positions continuously since 2007, and I haven't had a single job that's remotely similar to your description. That's a total of 5 different companies. The smaller companies seem to be at least somewhat capable of a proper development process (including the mutual respect that you call "Japanese"). I found the larger companies were great if you didn't actually feel like doing any work (which I hated, thus the jumping around).
You are right that larger companies don't seem to care about security, but that's mostly because they don't care about the quality of their software in general.
I'll definitely believe there are companies that are abusing the visa system, and those companies should be prosecuted aggressively (as in, liquidate the company and throw the executives in prison). But what you're describing is not a significant part of the industry I work in.
And the punishment for driving on a suspended/revoked license is?
No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.
It wasn't recording. I had it configured to send me an e-mail when it detected motion (requiring an internet connection) but it wasn't saving anything to the "cloud". (Aside from the still image included in the e-mail).
As for using homegrown solutions, I used to have time for that, I don't anymore. It's just not a fun or valuable use of my time. That doesn't mean I don't protect my privacy, Nest cam allows you to control whether it stores data in the cloud.
Given that the camera can be turned on from the iOS app, I'm not surprised that it doesn't power down (it's also turned off from the app, there's no switch on the device). It still needs a working Wi-Fi connection in order to be turned on again.
I used my Dropcam (back when it was still called that) to catch my landlord entering my apartment illegally. I complained to the management company and got $500 back, more than the cost of the camera. It was ridiculously easy, given that I had an e-mail with a picture of the guy's face walking into my apartment.
There might well be a cheaper solution, but I've found this to work well.
And I don't agree that it's going to get worse, the first versions of these devices will have flaws, but they'll get fixed.
They really should reverse the change in World Service funding. It should absolutely be funded by the FCO. Plenty of places around the world depend on BBC for real coverage when their own local news is just government propaganda. BBC Farsi comes to mind.
Granted, the Intercept found some disturbing information about the BBC recently in relation to remarks by a Saudi official, but I've found the quality of the reporting to be much better than US news sources. I'm American, been reading BBC for at least 10 years (back then U.S. readers would see the "World Service" branding on bbc.co.uk), and I'd happily pay for it.
Having the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fund World Service was a stroke of brilliance, what better way to bolster the world's view of Britain than to broadcast "the British Point of View" all over the world? I don't understand why the U.S. doesn't do the same thing. It's good, solid diplomacy.
Oh, and the North Korean people will find some way to listen/watch. In Iran people get their hands on illegal satellite dishes. Somebody will figure out something.
I guess I would agree with this. Somewhere in the range of $5K-15K is probably appropriate. However, his father raised as much hell about his son's civil rights, and it really does sound like the son was offered the move to Qatar (and allowed to bring his family along) as a sort of PR stunt by Qatar.
Meanwhile, slaves are still dying in the construction of their new stadium. I find his decision disgusting, he obviously has no problem with racism when it's to his benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a question, if a warrant were required to use a Stingray (it is, in some places) and if the Stringray intercepts everyone's calls, shouldn't the warrant have to cover all of the phones that would be affected? And if that's the case, how could you possibly justify searching the communications of someone you know isn't a suspect?
Imagine if the police said they wanted a copy of every bank statement issued by Bank of America in the last ten years, because they had evidence that the proceeds of a robbery had moved through that bank. Now imagine they wouldn't tell you how long the irrelevant information would be kept or what they would do with it. Of course, in reality, the police don't tell judges that they're using a Stringray, and they certainly don't tell them what extraneous information they'll pick up. They also don't obtain a warrant, but they do get a court order. I wonder if there's even a prohibition against the police department selling the information they collect to a third party.
Unless there are very strict rules about what the police can use the information they captured for and how long they can keep that information, yes, I'd rather let the robber get away. It's only money.
He's incorrect in assuming that anything can be done to stop people from using math. Whatsapp is *just* an app, and anyone can write an app that implements this functionality. That means it's impossible to prevent bad elements (terrorists, criminals, whoever the FBI feels like investigating) from using encryption.
Besides, encryption isn't necessarily required for terrorist attacks. The Paris attackers used burner phones, and I doubt the IRA ever used encryption during the Troubles.
Excellent point. This really does seem like a "vote with your wallet" thing. I've got a Nest cam (purchased when they were still Dropcam). I'll keep it as long as it works, but I'm not going to pay their monthly fee, because I'm not going to pay a company that feels it can just shut it down at any time. I swore off Sony when they took linux support out of the PS3, and I've long since switched from Android to iOS.
Google/Nest shouldn't expect to make much progress in this space, now that people know anything they buy will be abandoned a couple of years later.
Before taking office, he held a 50% interest in a firm that was a creditor to the Icelandic state. He sold that interest to his wife for $1 to avoid disclosing that interest. The holding was hidden in a Panamanian shell company.
This wasn't a "join checking account". I have no idea why you would think it was.
Meanwhile, I'm glad they finally released the update so that I could install it. My iPad kept prompting me to install iOS 9.3 but then told me that it couldn't. Even today, I couldn't use the OTA update mechanism and instead had to plug in the iPad (I almost never connect it to my Mac) and update using iTunes. All because some idiots couldn't remember their iTunes password.
On the European political spectrum, you're right, they're conservatives. However, in the U.S. neither of them are nearly conservative enough to satisfy the Republican base.
Off the top of my head:
- Harder metal
- Harder glass
- Greatly improved water resistance
Apple is now selling phones they expect their customers to keep for a year and then return to them (the "iPhone Upgrade Program"). They made all sorts of little tweaks to the 6S to increase their resale value so that Apple isn't left with a huge stack of unsellable used phones. I think it's unlikely that you'll see delicate iPhones unless they end that program.
However, it seems like curved glass would be unusable in a case that protects the screen from cracking. I don't use a case for my iPhone, but many, many people do. I'll buy the OLED theory, and I'll buy the smaller bezels. Two things I don't see happening:
1) Curved screen on an iPhone
2) A radical redesign in an "S" model. They might switch to OLED in an S model though.
Now, the iPad series might get curved screens eventually. Those have entirely different usage parameters.
I think a crazy conservative is much more likely to shoot Trump than a liberal. If it's Trump v. Clinton then there's no conservative on the ballot, and the Republican party will be seriously damaged by the campaign. Plus, a good number of Democrats are happy to see Trump wreck the Republican party. I assume Trump will lose a general election badly. If enough Republicans stay home then Trump might not win a single state, and it would take less than that for him to fail to get 270 delegates.
The idea of a heavily armed audience at a brokered Republican convention is a truly terrifying concept. It really could turn into a firefight, and then the national guard has to be called into combat in an American city. And if you think that's ridiculous, consider what you would have said of Trump being the Republican nominee for president two years ago.
This extension does something completely different than what it claims to do, and makes no mention of this extra "feature". That should be enough to have it taken down. Google has made it essentially impossible to install extensions from outside their "store". If Google makes no representations about the quality or safety of the extensions in the store, then why not let sites host the extensions themselves?
There's practically no information in the store to base a decision on other than the name of the author and a description. If extensions were hosted on their own sites you could at least know what organization created the extension by verifying the HTTPS cert of the site. With the store model you're trusting Google to verify the information in the store.
The cards would be stolen by criminals and gangs. If they had PINs, then the PIN would be beaten out of them by said gangs.
If you're allowing the ad network to place content on your page ("content" meaning anything visible to the user, or code executed by the browser) while disclaiming responsibility for that content, then you've handed control over content to the ad network. It's one of the internet's more unsavory innovations, and practically unheard of anywhere except internet advertising.
What I'm saying is, getting rid of the worst business practice you had doesn't make up for all the other bad practices that you allow to continue (the list is longer than just ads). I frankly don't care, as I use an ad blocker, and I only find myself going to sourceforge for projects that are so old that they haven't been maintained for years.
What I don't understand is, if no editorial control is exercised over the content of the ads, then why isn't there porn? Certainly it's profitable to advertise, so if it's an open submission process then at least some of the ads should be for porn. If not, then someone somewhere must be checking these ads for content. Why aren't they filtering out scams?
I did notice that you're giving an ad network control over content on your page, and yes I did notice that it was Google.
The advertisers aren't creating download buttons to look "native", they're doing it to try to trick the user. You're getting your revenue from fraud. I suppose if you do create a reporting feature, the advertisers will then copy that too, so that instead of reporting the ad the user is led down a rabbit hole of redirects ending with a drive-by exploit.
How about subjecting all ads to human review before they're posted on your site? The flood of fraudulent ads would be reduced to a trickle if they knew each ad would be eyeballed before any users saw them.
As suggested by others, you could also change the design of the site so that the ads would be clearly separated from the content. Why allow advertisers to make their ads look like native content, unless you don't care what advertisers say with your brand?
You've still got fake download buttons, despite Google announcing that such sites will start getting actively blocked by Chrome.
You're getting paid to try to trick people into installing questionable software. Whether it's through "bundled" installers, fake download buttons, or anything else, it's too scummy to be associated with someone else's work.
Want to stop being treated like scum? Try honesty, rather than trying to screw and defraud your users.
You're using the wrong blocker. Try 'Distilled'.
My home PC is not something I spend a ton of time maintaining (or I'd be using Linux). Yes, I'm using software for the mirrored RAID, mostly because I was more comfortable I'd be able to swap in a new drive with the software RAID than the hardware RAID, and the hardware RAID configuration was pretty painful. I *was* using the hardware RAID until there was an actual problem and it made it as difficult as possible to diagnose.
The extra time from setting up Windows 10 mostly comes from disabling things. Setting the default browser takes a little longer, there are more pre-installed apps (like "Get Office" and "Get Skype") that have to be uninstalled - which requires finding them in the start menu, you can't search for them if you want to uninstall them. Even if OneDrive isn't configured it still decides to start with Windows and generate notifications, so I turn that off too (usually that gets delayed because it updates while I'm trying to disable it). Plus the trackpad notification. I also clear most of the junk out of the start menu, like Mail, Sports, Finance, and Candy Crush.
I had Windows 8.1 down to about 30 minutes of interactive setup, Windows 10 is about 90 minutes. It would be much longer if we were buying direct from the manufacturer (more shovelware), but all of the PCs I assign out now are Microsoft Signature PCs. Of course Microsoft Signature doesn't exempt you from Microsoft's own shovelware (I really hate the 'Get Skype' app).
Yeah, I found it that update had managed to re-install itself as well, I think I've re-installed it twice. Back in December Microsoft said they were going to start auto-downloading Windows 10 so I disabled automatic updates all together. It's kind of annoying to have to manually install the updates for Windows Defender, but it's worth it.
I'm not upgrading to Windows 10 because I have a software RAID and I have no faith in the upgrade process (and I don't have enough storage to completely back up the RAID). It's my last Windows PC anyway, once Apple comes out with a Thunderbolt 3 iMac I'll move to that plus an external RAID, until then I'm fine with Windows 8.1 Pro. I do wish that they would be a bit more respectful of their users, but I can't very well expect good treatment for someone who's leaving their platform anyway.
I also handle IT purchasing for my company, Windows 10 takes about 3x longer to set up than Windows 8.1 machines did, so I'm hoping given the cost of my time I'll be able to convince management it's finally time to stop buying Windows machines. 90% of the users prefer Macs anyway, and you don't have to pay extra for HD encryption or fight with the printer driver to convince it the printer isn't "offline".
One thing Microsoft really screwed up with on 10: I should be able to disable notifications for an app BEFORE it starts generating them. Right now every time I re-setup a Windows 10 PC I have to get the touchpad notification to trigger so I can disable it.
"GM chief Mary Barra: 'pattern of incompetence' caused fatal recall delay"
GM was completely incompetent, which is why it went out of business. GM was renamed to Motors Liquidation Company and split into trusts to deal with the long term effects of GM's incompetence. The incompetent, decrepit organization was of course transferred to a new corporation, so that it can fail again in a few years.
The new GM made sure it wouldn't be responsible for the legal consequences of the poor quality vehicles it released prior to 2009, so it can't claim the history of the company that manufactured them either. New GM is a brand new company, with the same failed engineering organization.
Who knows, maybe GM will be the Yahoo! of cars, with its ownership stake in various companies worth more than the core business. In any case, Lyft will hopefully do something more productive with GM's money than GM would have done with it.
Worldwide, more straight people have HIV than gay people, by a huge margin. You probably mean the U.S. though, in which case:
"MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available."
So, straight people would appear to be 46%, hardly a "tiny fraction of a percent".
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html
I'm a self-taught programmer, I've been working full-time salary positions continuously since 2007, and I haven't had a single job that's remotely similar to your description. That's a total of 5 different companies. The smaller companies seem to be at least somewhat capable of a proper development process (including the mutual respect that you call "Japanese"). I found the larger companies were great if you didn't actually feel like doing any work (which I hated, thus the jumping around).
You are right that larger companies don't seem to care about security, but that's mostly because they don't care about the quality of their software in general.
I'll definitely believe there are companies that are abusing the visa system, and those companies should be prosecuted aggressively (as in, liquidate the company and throw the executives in prison). But what you're describing is not a significant part of the industry I work in.
And the punishment for driving on a suspended/revoked license is?
No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.
It wasn't recording. I had it configured to send me an e-mail when it detected motion (requiring an internet connection) but it wasn't saving anything to the "cloud". (Aside from the still image included in the e-mail).
As for using homegrown solutions, I used to have time for that, I don't anymore. It's just not a fun or valuable use of my time. That doesn't mean I don't protect my privacy, Nest cam allows you to control whether it stores data in the cloud.
Given that the camera can be turned on from the iOS app, I'm not surprised that it doesn't power down (it's also turned off from the app, there's no switch on the device). It still needs a working Wi-Fi connection in order to be turned on again.
You say "cool", I say useful.
I used my Dropcam (back when it was still called that) to catch my landlord entering my apartment illegally. I complained to the management company and got $500 back, more than the cost of the camera. It was ridiculously easy, given that I had an e-mail with a picture of the guy's face walking into my apartment.
There might well be a cheaper solution, but I've found this to work well.
And I don't agree that it's going to get worse, the first versions of these devices will have flaws, but they'll get fixed.
They really should reverse the change in World Service funding. It should absolutely be funded by the FCO. Plenty of places around the world depend on BBC for real coverage when their own local news is just government propaganda. BBC Farsi comes to mind.
Granted, the Intercept found some disturbing information about the BBC recently in relation to remarks by a Saudi official, but I've found the quality of the reporting to be much better than US news sources. I'm American, been reading BBC for at least 10 years (back then U.S. readers would see the "World Service" branding on bbc.co.uk), and I'd happily pay for it.
Having the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fund World Service was a stroke of brilliance, what better way to bolster the world's view of Britain than to broadcast "the British Point of View" all over the world? I don't understand why the U.S. doesn't do the same thing. It's good, solid diplomacy.
Oh, and the North Korean people will find some way to listen/watch. In Iran people get their hands on illegal satellite dishes. Somebody will figure out something.
I guess I would agree with this. Somewhere in the range of $5K-15K is probably appropriate. However, his father raised as much hell about his son's civil rights, and it really does sound like the son was offered the move to Qatar (and allowed to bring his family along) as a sort of PR stunt by Qatar.
Meanwhile, slaves are still dying in the construction of their new stadium. I find his decision disgusting, he obviously has no problem with racism when it's to his benefit.