Not really. We as a society are extremely dependent on this stuff. We use it for just about everything, from cars and machinery, to furnishings and toys, right down to medical tubing and syringes. We need our plastic, we don't have anything lined up to take its place in the modern world.
What we don't need is "disposable" plastic containers, these were an awful idea. Let's go back to glass. Sure it's heavier, but we can recycle it much easier and it's not such an annoyance in the wild.
If people would just use their brains, we could eliminate so much plastic waste. We've gone way off the deep-end with putting everything in "disposable" plastic containers.
Let's see... people are using the internet to 'date.' And somehow this is a really awful thing, so, I know what to do. Let's blame the websites! They look like nice rich folks who'll be able to fill lawyer pockets with cash to fight this.
I notice a lot of politicians and lawmakers tend to be lawyers or judges before they were politicians. Ever get the feeling they're doing stuff like this to generate income for their lawyer buddies? I mean, this is a really really ugly can of worms and you're going after the websites instead of the individuals that're actually the bad actors. Talk about backwards, stupid and defective. Just wow.
Yeah, I dunno. Seems like government is trying to push everything into the dark web, so they can have a clean kid-friendly, politically-correct internet for the masses. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a good thing, but maybe it'll force the trolls and their ilk in to the dark web too. Then we can have a happy cloud with no dirty spots, no controversy, and certainly no free-speech. Good job?
Oh Zuckyboy there is right on the money, though he's short-changing himself by a few years. I don't think Facebook is even going to be a thing for a heck of a lot longer. This is a mortal wound. I don't see a scenario that has Facebook looking pretty in a few years time. So yeah, hate speech gunna be gone from Facebook, cuz Facebook will be gone.
People keep buying these products from these obviously shady companies. Yes I'm talking about you Apple. You are a shady company.
You may have fooled the sheeple with your flashy ads and catchy marketing, but you're peddling garbage that breaks easily, can't be serviced by design and generally is inferior products at a premium price.
There was a time when I had some shreds of sympathy for people who purchased Apple gear and thought they were buying premium hardware but were really getting substandard crap at a vastly inflated price. No sympathy left. You made that choice, you live with it.
I won't even go into console gaming machines that stick these stickers to their trash. But, on a more humorous side, I am exceptionally amused by SODIMM's I get from discarded laptops that have 'warranty void if removed' sticker on them.. like there's any way to 'service' a SODIMM. LOL.
Will humanity learn that a disposable ecosystem for our gadgets is really f'ing stupid and braindead? Probably not.
Make a stand, make a choice. Buy products that are not only built well from the start, but are very serviceable, with replaceable parts made easy and simple even for the non-technician. Dell was one of these companies, but I dunno, some of their newer laptops seem to be adopting the 'use it until it doesn't work then throw it away' motto. As long as consumers keep buying the disposable gadgets, companies will keep making them. Stop buying that crap.
This is the sort of behavior one expects of a Democrat controlled government. Not the Repedocans. Oh yes, ever since Roy Moore, your party is forever attached to pedos. Sorry about that.
Insults and jabs aside... stupid... about the only word in my vocabulary that describes this situation. Stupid. Like there isn't going to be 324082103.onion sites to fill the void. Face it, you can't police or regulate the internet, it's designed to route around such stupidity.
The harder you try, the more ugly it gets. Just leave it alone, cuz you can't influence it through laws and regulations. We just laugh at you.
Something has always baffled me about security questions being used to hijack someone else's account on whatever site.
Maybe my experience is different, but every time I've used a password reset form that required me to put in a security question answer... something else happens first. I get an email from the site, after requesting a password reset, to continue that reset I need to click a link in the email. After I do that, then it asks me a security question before continuing with the reset.
Now, here's my question... how the hell are people overcoming this? There needs to be a epic level of fail for this to be a viable backdoor. You need control of the email account in question, and you'd have to get that email'd link to continue the process. So what am I missing, how does the thief go from "I got the security question answers." to "I got control of the account." There's something missing from this.
I'm surprised these stupid little quizzes are still a thing. I thought it was amusing for a few minutes about 15 years ago, after that I decided I have better things to waste my time doing.
Another one shoots themselves in the foot and I'm amused, pleased. Evil service that does nothing but harm civilized society making it harder to use it? Awesome.
If this were true, we would not have a thing such as mental illness. While a good post overall, the oversight is troubling. Some (maybe most?) certainly CANNOT control what they think.
thanks to governmental prohibitions on walkable neighborhoods, most are unable to walk or take buses
Say what? This is news right here. There's a government prohibition on walking? Please do elaborate on this, because I'm very curious what the hell you're talking about.
The old cliche is not wrong. I'm bored too, and it's not for lack of entertainment choices, the selection has never been better. Between Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and a bursting at the seams library of games (Steam), it seems to matter not. I'm bored more than I'm not.
It's a very subjective emotion, boredom. I firmly believe it has absolutely nothing to do with having something to do, or be amused by. It's a state of being jaded and supersaturated.
So you could increase the available games, entertainment and leisure activities by 10 fold, people will still get bored.
One interesting aspect of boredom I've discovered, is it seems to self-alleviate when your choices are forced. Like for example, the power goes out, now you're limited to battery power and non-electronic sources of amusement, and when the power was on, you'd never thought of those things as being interesting, but when you're forced into a substandard leisure activity, it's still just as fulfilling as the one you thought you wanted. Weird.
Their intentions are clearly security-minded, but the lack of explicit consent and transparency seems to violate their own criteria of âuser-friendly software' that informs the policy for Chrome Cleanup [Tool].
This is the difference between wanted security consciousness and hiding what you're doing to a customer's computer. Communication. If Google had come out and said they would add this to Chrome, before a security researcher came out with this information, no one would have cared or looked twice. It's all about communication. Tell people what you're up to, otherwise, we freak out and assume the worst.
Sure, I'll agree with summary. A closed system is inherently harder to hack. And harder to put malware onto if the model is excluding unsigned/unapproved code.
But is this something we really want? We've heard that 'they' would like general purpose computing to be revoked from the general population, or at least severely limited.
This is a step in that direction, under the guise of 'It's more secure!', yeah, it's also locked down and useless for any function other than it's designated function. I'm not really interested in this. I don't think it's a good idea to be pushing this kind of solution.
It's a nice looking 'gift', but it's trojan horse. A trojan to train the population that they don't need general purpose computing, and that general purpose open computing is dangerous and unsafe. Not good.
And frankly, if the average user downloads malware and installs it, or browses a malicious website. They deserve whatever they get. Stay away from untrusted programs and websites, plain and simple. I have no sympathy for people who browse untrusted sites and download garbage they don't need.
I actually like these people. They pay my bills, since I have to remove their stupid from their machines and teach them how to not be stupid.
No amount of anti-virus, flaw correction, security patches or arm twisting will fix the levels of stupid of the average user, so stop gimping ALL OF OUR PC's because some people can't take 5 seconds out of their busy lives to learn how to use a computer properly.
You sound like an Intel apologist to me. Are you getting paid, or do you just have a lot of Intel kit and you don't want to feel stupid?
Why is this the assumption when someone disagrees with you? I wish I were getting paid for speaking my mind, but I'm not. Must be a painful unpleasant reality you exist in where everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. So much paranoia.
When Meltdown and Spectre were first revealed, I know I posted on here: PLEASE MAKE FIXES OPTIONAL.
Mainly because these 'flaws,' and I do use that word loosely. I'm not entirely convinced it's an actual flaw. It's just how it works. Anyway, gimping the execution predicting to protect against these 'flaws' is really stupid on a desktop computer, where there's no VM's, very little if any usage outside of 1 user. They're hurting computing performance for a non-issue.
On server systems, data center, etc, yes, fix this bug, it's a real issue on shared computing resources. On a desktop where there's 1 maybe 2 users whom browse the web, play games, type documents and otherwise 'use' their computer normally, it should be left as is. It's not a flaw on desktops. The flaw is fixing this on desktop, because it gimps performance.
All that aside, Microsoft making it worse it just laughable. And pretty much non-surprising. I'd wager Microsoft is one of the few companies that could take a 'problem' with fairly straight forward fixes and fuck it up, making a bigger problem than originally existed. Par for the course, for Microsoft.
This year marks another interesting milestone, another Linux desktop install and attempt to try to 'survive' without Windows. It's doable now, there's enough gaming choices for native Linux and plenty of emulation available to get a rich fulfilling gamer setup on Linux, at last. And in the nick of time, last fucking thing I need is my frickin' operating system telling me what I can and cannot type, look at, send and receive. Outrageous.
Still running a dual booting box, but, Windows 10 is seeing very little use now that I've got Linux taking over it's duties and doing a fine job too!
The point of posting? Try Linux. Start with Mint if you're frightened of Linux. It's plenty easy to use, as easy as Windows most of the time. Microsoft has pulled a lot of really dirty stunts over the years. This latest is the straw that breaks this camel. Done, finished. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gunna go play some SimCity 4 which runs fantastic on wine and Linux, flawless.
After YouTube announcing they'll be disallowing certain types of videos, I gotta hand it to Google. They're becoming quite proficient at shooting themselves in the foot. This time with a shotgun. Nice work. Piss everyone off, make jail-broke phones useless on your services. Good job. Are you trying to give up market share to a new competitor to the field, or are you just pulling a Microsoft and not giving a flying f what people think, you got them trapped?
Either way, you're playing with fire here, Google. You are not Microsoft. Your OS is open source, anyone can pick up the pieces and rebuild a new Android that rivals your own and doesn't include the proprietary bullshit.
Apples and Oranges, friend. Net Neutrality is about transport. Not about content. Every bit being transported by any router should treat it the same as any other bit. That's net neutrality.
YouTube is a website hosting videos. They are not an internet connection provider, they are a content provider. As a content provider, they have full and complete authorization and legal standing to alter, distribute, store, and refuse to distribute any and all content put on their service. It's not a transport provider. They have no net neutrality issues, cause they're not in the transport business. They're a content provider. They're a source of the bits you'd like treated the same as any other bits.
Back to an argument I often make, websites are private. When you visit any website (excepting state/government run sites), you are a guest of that site's owners. You have no rights, no legal recourse, no options but to quit using the site if you dislike how it's run, or what it's showing you, or anything. It's THEIR site, they can do anything they damn well please, within legal bounds of course. You have no recourse but to discontinue usage of the site. Think of visiting a website as going over to someone elses house. They can insist on all sorts of abnormal rules. Like requiring you to remove your shoes before entering, No smoking cigarettes inside, etc. In a public venue, such rules would be an outrage, but in a private venue, they are perfectly normal. And your options? Same. Play by your host's rules, or leave.
So please, don't be waving the "OMG CENSORSHIP BLOODY HELL, MY RIGHTS!" or the "OMG NET NEUTRALITY!" bullshit around. Nothing to do with Net neutrality, and nothing to do with censorship. YouTube is full within their right to run their site however the fuck they want. If they wanna ban videos of knitting, they can do that, and there's nothing you can do about it. Except stop using the site.
OK, it's stupid. YouTube is really going to pay dearly for this. Taking any stance on any issue is not what YouTube should be doing. BUT! They're well within their right to shoot themselves in the foot.
As a side note, opening this can of worms is going to be a complete nightmare for Google. Once you take one stance on one issue, now you're going to be expected take more stances on issues someone feels is critical. Also, now that you've put your card on the table, refusing to take a stance when demanded to will always result in the most negative position being assumed. Sorry about that Google, but you have my sympathy.
They, we, and everyone would have been much better off if YouTube kept silent and just said, 'We store and redistribute our user's videos, nothing more. Each user is responsible for the content of their videos.'
You have no idea if that is true, and I have seen cases where the data they had was incorrect. Why do you think they allow the edits?
Are you suggesting that Google does not keep a record of your edits? Seriously? Google LOVES data, they want to know everything, you can bet it's recorded you made an edit.
Slashdot Mirror
Losing plastic would still be worth it.
Not really. We as a society are extremely dependent on this stuff. We use it for just about everything, from cars and machinery, to furnishings and toys, right down to medical tubing and syringes. We need our plastic, we don't have anything lined up to take its place in the modern world.
What we don't need is "disposable" plastic containers, these were an awful idea. Let's go back to glass. Sure it's heavier, but we can recycle it much easier and it's not such an annoyance in the wild.
If people would just use their brains, we could eliminate so much plastic waste. We've gone way off the deep-end with putting everything in "disposable" plastic containers.
a law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release.
What a cheapshot law. Protectionism for some industry has never really worked, why is this a law? Time for that to change. Silly.
Adapt or die.
Let's see... people are using the internet to 'date.' And somehow this is a really awful thing, so, I know what to do. Let's blame the websites! They look like nice rich folks who'll be able to fill lawyer pockets with cash to fight this.
I notice a lot of politicians and lawmakers tend to be lawyers or judges before they were politicians. Ever get the feeling they're doing stuff like this to generate income for their lawyer buddies? I mean, this is a really really ugly can of worms and you're going after the websites instead of the individuals that're actually the bad actors. Talk about backwards, stupid and defective. Just wow.
Yeah, I dunno. Seems like government is trying to push everything into the dark web, so they can have a clean kid-friendly, politically-correct internet for the masses. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a good thing, but maybe it'll force the trolls and their ilk in to the dark web too. Then we can have a happy cloud with no dirty spots, no controversy, and certainly no free-speech. Good job?
Oh Zuckyboy there is right on the money, though he's short-changing himself by a few years. I don't think Facebook is even going to be a thing for a heck of a lot longer. This is a mortal wound. I don't see a scenario that has Facebook looking pretty in a few years time. So yeah, hate speech gunna be gone from Facebook, cuz Facebook will be gone.
Good riddance. Twitter next please.
People keep buying these products from these obviously shady companies. Yes I'm talking about you Apple. You are a shady company.
You may have fooled the sheeple with your flashy ads and catchy marketing, but you're peddling garbage that breaks easily, can't be serviced by design and generally is inferior products at a premium price.
There was a time when I had some shreds of sympathy for people who purchased Apple gear and thought they were buying premium hardware but were really getting substandard crap at a vastly inflated price. No sympathy left. You made that choice, you live with it.
I won't even go into console gaming machines that stick these stickers to their trash. But, on a more humorous side, I am exceptionally amused by SODIMM's I get from discarded laptops that have 'warranty void if removed' sticker on them.. like there's any way to 'service' a SODIMM. LOL.
Will humanity learn that a disposable ecosystem for our gadgets is really f'ing stupid and braindead? Probably not.
Make a stand, make a choice. Buy products that are not only built well from the start, but are very serviceable, with replaceable parts made easy and simple even for the non-technician. Dell was one of these companies, but I dunno, some of their newer laptops seem to be adopting the 'use it until it doesn't work then throw it away' motto. As long as consumers keep buying the disposable gadgets, companies will keep making them. Stop buying that crap.
This is the sort of behavior one expects of a Democrat controlled government. Not the Repedocans. Oh yes, ever since Roy Moore, your party is forever attached to pedos. Sorry about that.
Insults and jabs aside... stupid... about the only word in my vocabulary that describes this situation. Stupid. Like there isn't going to be 324082103 .onion sites to fill the void. Face it, you can't police or regulate the internet, it's designed to route around such stupidity.
The harder you try, the more ugly it gets. Just leave it alone, cuz you can't influence it through laws and regulations. We just laugh at you.
Something has always baffled me about security questions being used to hijack someone else's account on whatever site.
Maybe my experience is different, but every time I've used a password reset form that required me to put in a security question answer... something else happens first. I get an email from the site, after requesting a password reset, to continue that reset I need to click a link in the email. After I do that, then it asks me a security question before continuing with the reset.
Now, here's my question... how the hell are people overcoming this? There needs to be a epic level of fail for this to be a viable backdoor. You need control of the email account in question, and you'd have to get that email'd link to continue the process. So what am I missing, how does the thief go from "I got the security question answers." to "I got control of the account." There's something missing from this.
I'm surprised these stupid little quizzes are still a thing. I thought it was amusing for a few minutes about 15 years ago, after that I decided I have better things to waste my time doing.
Another one shoots themselves in the foot and I'm amused, pleased. Evil service that does nothing but harm civilized society making it harder to use it? Awesome.
you can control what you think.
If this were true, we would not have a thing such as mental illness. While a good post overall, the oversight is troubling. Some (maybe most?) certainly CANNOT control what they think.
thanks to governmental prohibitions on walkable neighborhoods, most are unable to walk or take buses
Say what? This is news right here. There's a government prohibition on walking? Please do elaborate on this, because I'm very curious what the hell you're talking about.
...it's Generation U. Useless.
Generation Z still works just as good. Zombie.
The old cliche is not wrong. I'm bored too, and it's not for lack of entertainment choices, the selection has never been better. Between Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and a bursting at the seams library of games (Steam), it seems to matter not. I'm bored more than I'm not.
It's a very subjective emotion, boredom. I firmly believe it has absolutely nothing to do with having something to do, or be amused by. It's a state of being jaded and supersaturated.
So you could increase the available games, entertainment and leisure activities by 10 fold, people will still get bored.
One interesting aspect of boredom I've discovered, is it seems to self-alleviate when your choices are forced. Like for example, the power goes out, now you're limited to battery power and non-electronic sources of amusement, and when the power was on, you'd never thought of those things as being interesting, but when you're forced into a substandard leisure activity, it's still just as fulfilling as the one you thought you wanted. Weird.
Their intentions are clearly security-minded, but the lack of explicit consent and transparency seems to violate their own criteria of âuser-friendly software' that informs the policy for Chrome Cleanup [Tool].
This is the difference between wanted security consciousness and hiding what you're doing to a customer's computer. Communication. If Google had come out and said they would add this to Chrome, before a security researcher came out with this information, no one would have cared or looked twice. It's all about communication. Tell people what you're up to, otherwise, we freak out and assume the worst.
Sure, I'll agree with summary. A closed system is inherently harder to hack. And harder to put malware onto if the model is excluding unsigned/unapproved code.
But is this something we really want? We've heard that 'they' would like general purpose computing to be revoked from the general population, or at least severely limited.
This is a step in that direction, under the guise of 'It's more secure!', yeah, it's also locked down and useless for any function other than it's designated function. I'm not really interested in this. I don't think it's a good idea to be pushing this kind of solution.
It's a nice looking 'gift', but it's trojan horse. A trojan to train the population that they don't need general purpose computing, and that general purpose open computing is dangerous and unsafe. Not good.
And yet again, turnkey systems rear their ugly truth: If one is vulnerable, then they all are.
Stay away from turnkey solutions, roll your own, know what you have and how it works.
....And that describes the average user desktop.
And frankly, if the average user downloads malware and installs it, or browses a malicious website. They deserve whatever they get. Stay away from untrusted programs and websites, plain and simple. I have no sympathy for people who browse untrusted sites and download garbage they don't need.
I actually like these people. They pay my bills, since I have to remove their stupid from their machines and teach them how to not be stupid.
No amount of anti-virus, flaw correction, security patches or arm twisting will fix the levels of stupid of the average user, so stop gimping ALL OF OUR PC's because some people can't take 5 seconds out of their busy lives to learn how to use a computer properly.
You sound like an Intel apologist to me. Are you getting paid, or do you just have a lot of Intel kit and you don't want to feel stupid?
Why is this the assumption when someone disagrees with you? I wish I were getting paid for speaking my mind, but I'm not. Must be a painful unpleasant reality you exist in where everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. So much paranoia.
When Meltdown and Spectre were first revealed, I know I posted on here: PLEASE MAKE FIXES OPTIONAL.
Mainly because these 'flaws,' and I do use that word loosely. I'm not entirely convinced it's an actual flaw. It's just how it works. Anyway, gimping the execution predicting to protect against these 'flaws' is really stupid on a desktop computer, where there's no VM's, very little if any usage outside of 1 user. They're hurting computing performance for a non-issue.
On server systems, data center, etc, yes, fix this bug, it's a real issue on shared computing resources. On a desktop where there's 1 maybe 2 users whom browse the web, play games, type documents and otherwise 'use' their computer normally, it should be left as is. It's not a flaw on desktops. The flaw is fixing this on desktop, because it gimps performance.
All that aside, Microsoft making it worse it just laughable. And pretty much non-surprising. I'd wager Microsoft is one of the few companies that could take a 'problem' with fairly straight forward fixes and fuck it up, making a bigger problem than originally existed. Par for the course, for Microsoft.
Given Google's history of taking things away, I would not build anything that depends on this. It will probably disappear in a year.
This year marks another interesting milestone, another Linux desktop install and attempt to try to 'survive' without Windows. It's doable now, there's enough gaming choices for native Linux and plenty of emulation available to get a rich fulfilling gamer setup on Linux, at last. And in the nick of time, last fucking thing I need is my frickin' operating system telling me what I can and cannot type, look at, send and receive. Outrageous.
Still running a dual booting box, but, Windows 10 is seeing very little use now that I've got Linux taking over it's duties and doing a fine job too!
The point of posting? Try Linux. Start with Mint if you're frightened of Linux. It's plenty easy to use, as easy as Windows most of the time. Microsoft has pulled a lot of really dirty stunts over the years. This latest is the straw that breaks this camel. Done, finished. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gunna go play some SimCity 4 which runs fantastic on wine and Linux, flawless.
After YouTube announcing they'll be disallowing certain types of videos, I gotta hand it to Google. They're becoming quite proficient at shooting themselves in the foot. This time with a shotgun. Nice work. Piss everyone off, make jail-broke phones useless on your services. Good job. Are you trying to give up market share to a new competitor to the field, or are you just pulling a Microsoft and not giving a flying f what people think, you got them trapped?
Either way, you're playing with fire here, Google. You are not Microsoft. Your OS is open source, anyone can pick up the pieces and rebuild a new Android that rivals your own and doesn't include the proprietary bullshit.
Apples and Oranges, friend. Net Neutrality is about transport. Not about content. Every bit being transported by any router should treat it the same as any other bit. That's net neutrality.
YouTube is a website hosting videos. They are not an internet connection provider, they are a content provider. As a content provider, they have full and complete authorization and legal standing to alter, distribute, store, and refuse to distribute any and all content put on their service. It's not a transport provider. They have no net neutrality issues, cause they're not in the transport business. They're a content provider. They're a source of the bits you'd like treated the same as any other bits.
Back to an argument I often make, websites are private. When you visit any website (excepting state/government run sites), you are a guest of that site's owners. You have no rights, no legal recourse, no options but to quit using the site if you dislike how it's run, or what it's showing you, or anything. It's THEIR site, they can do anything they damn well please, within legal bounds of course. You have no recourse but to discontinue usage of the site. Think of visiting a website as going over to someone elses house. They can insist on all sorts of abnormal rules. Like requiring you to remove your shoes before entering, No smoking cigarettes inside, etc. In a public venue, such rules would be an outrage, but in a private venue, they are perfectly normal. And your options? Same. Play by your host's rules, or leave.
So please, don't be waving the "OMG CENSORSHIP BLOODY HELL, MY RIGHTS!" or the "OMG NET NEUTRALITY!" bullshit around. Nothing to do with Net neutrality, and nothing to do with censorship. YouTube is full within their right to run their site however the fuck they want. If they wanna ban videos of knitting, they can do that, and there's nothing you can do about it. Except stop using the site.
OK, it's stupid. YouTube is really going to pay dearly for this. Taking any stance on any issue is not what YouTube should be doing. BUT! They're well within their right to shoot themselves in the foot.
As a side note, opening this can of worms is going to be a complete nightmare for Google. Once you take one stance on one issue, now you're going to be expected take more stances on issues someone feels is critical. Also, now that you've put your card on the table, refusing to take a stance when demanded to will always result in the most negative position being assumed. Sorry about that Google, but you have my sympathy.
They, we, and everyone would have been much better off if YouTube kept silent and just said, 'We store and redistribute our user's videos, nothing more. Each user is responsible for the content of their videos.'
You have no idea if that is true, and I have seen cases where the data they had was incorrect. Why do you think they allow the edits?
Are you suggesting that Google does not keep a record of your edits? Seriously? Google LOVES data, they want to know everything, you can bet it's recorded you made an edit.