Yeah, its not like letsencrypt offering automated certificates for free had anything to do with it. It was google showing a message about http being insecure.
We might not like to admit that, but that is the truth of it. Sure Let's Encrypt is great, use it myself. But you can bet your wallet Let's Encrypt had little to do with this shift. People don't like being branded 'insecure.' It looks bad. It looks inferior. It looks... uhh.. Insecure. Google pushing that had a huge effect. A visible indication your site is a security risk. That is the motivator right there, not freebie certs, though they didn't hurt.
You're too quick go give them credit. Follow the money trail. HTTPS and SPDY makes it far easier to ensure that ads are transmitted, and to whom. That HTTPS largely defeats anonymous proxy caching and other techniques that makes counting ad impressions harder is why Google pursues it; security is how they sell it, despite it being slower, to a high degree defeats bandwidth saving techniques, and requires extra resources on both server and client endpoints.
I'm ok with this. Computing power is cheap and only getting cheap and better. Also don't like having third-party intermediaries caching my stuff. Bandwidth is cheap too. Who cares? Besides you.
There's little reason why publicly available non-controversial information should be encrypted, and that makes up the majority of the web.
You don't get it? Privacy. I really don't give a flying f if I'm looking a recipe for peanut butter cookies, it's no one elses business and HTTPS means you have no idea what I'm looking at, just which server.
Despite Google's other not so nice activities, I gotta give them a thumbs-up here. Getting the web to transition away from HTTP to HTTPS is fantastic. There's no reason for skimping on your web server anymore, encryption is easy and even crappy virutal machines can serve up HTTPS without issue. Good job Google.
As a side effect, this action they've promoted and encouraged mitigates the new WPA2 insecurity quite nicely. Not such a big deal if WPA2 is broken into, only to expose lots of HTTPS and/or VPN tunneling, and you're back to the drawing board. You just can't have enough security and layers of encryption.
Does it ever seem like no matter what we do, it's wrong? From so many directions our impending doom approaches.. from nuclear war, climate change, and other ecological disasters, like this and bee colony collapse.
Maybe we should all watch more of Primitive Technology on Youtube, seems like we're going to have to learn how to live like that again sometime sooner than expected, if at all.
Also, treat bug hunters a little better, eh? When Timmy emails you about your stupid php mistakes, instead of calling the FBI, having him arrested, dragged into court, prosecuted, jailed, while your bug is still there, how about instead patting Timmy on the head and giving him a 5 or 6 digit payoff for telling you and tell him to keep looking for more mistakes.
Another simple helping hand: Bug-bounties need to be hefty. They need to pay more than crime does. Until they do, people who find this stuff will sell it to criminals instead of you. You gotta pay more than the criminals for your sloppiness.
I think it's really simple. Money is what motivates pretty much everything. So when a company's negligence results in criminal activity adversely affecting a person, that company will need to pay to make it right. Make you whole again, plain and simple, whatever it takes. They pay for it all.
Also I think making security marketing bulletpoint would help. Companies that get hacked get a reputation for getting hacked and die off. Companies that example good security by not getting hacked get a sort of 'years of no hacks' award or something and can tout that "20 years of no hacks." Make it a competition! Hell companies will start TRYING to hack each other to dethrone the longest no hacks. Nothing like competition to spur innovation.
A double-tap, or a tap followed by verbal, or something that the user finds satisfactory.
Because, at least in my opinion, Google likes the way Apple does things. And well, Apple likes to say, 'this isn't suitable, you can't do this anymore.' instead of just making it an option you can decide yourself.
Freedom of choice is too much power for lowly users, sorry. Also sometimes letting someone decide can lead to litigation, so.. cover your ass and all that.
Well, considering all you have is criticism for Linux, and obviously no intention of giving it a fair shake, I'm done with you. Good luck with Windows 10!
But I have to wonder, 22 minutes to boot, whacha trying to run it on, a 80486 with a MFM HDD?? Puhleeze. I have Celeron laptops right here that will boot Mint in less than 5 minutes. I think you're exaggerating and just dissing Mint to diss. Have fun with that.
The rest of you skeptics reading, give Mint a try. And if making a bootable USB from an ISO is rocket science, grab a copy of Rufus (for Windows) and use that to put your ISO image onto a USB stick for easy booting. Don't even have to google for instructions, I've given you all you need!
You missed the biggest contender for Linux desktop worthiness. Linux Mint. Which runs out of the box on just about any hardware I've thrown at it. It's reasonably friendly and reasonably easy to use. I highly recommend trying it. You can even get it on a Live bootable USB so you don't even need to put it on your hard drive to play with it.
Google already has earned a reputation for taking things away without recourse. You are Google's bitch if you use their stuff. Like Apple, Google will decide what is useful to you, regardless of your input.
I dunno. $4 for a pack of 21 1-liter bottles of water from Costco doesn't seem like a budget breaking decision.
And I'll be frank, tap water is disgusting almost everywhere. It might just be tap water they're putting into the bottles, but there's some serious filtration going on, that makes that water tastes 2000X better than tap water.
But personally, I only use bottled water when I drink it directly. For coffee, food prep, or anything else that needs water, the tap is fine.
For what it's worth, if you're like me and MUST have bottled water, at least make a responsible decision regarding buying it: Buy the largest containers you can. I like the 1-liter bottles myself. But not long ago, I had to use bottled water for everything, in that case, I bought my own 1 gallon jugs and refilled them. You can use bottled water is an environmentally less-impacting manner. Definitely don't buy small bottles, that is not cool.
This has absolutely nothing to do with nerds, technology, internet, or anything even close. It's a food company putting water in bottles. WTF. Not news that matters.
The trouble with DRM is that it's sort of ineffective. It tends to make things inconvenient for people who legitimately bought a song or movie while failing to stop piracy.
Glad someone is learning, finally.
Yet,
The content providers require that a key part of the system be closed source,
You still want to go down this road? Knowing all too well, it's not going to work. It's not going to stop piracy. It's going to irritate legitimate customers. And the Open Source community will not touch proprietary stuff.
Must this insanity continue? It's all wrapped into one post! They know it's stupid and ineffective, but they're going ahead with it anyway? I'd rather they all just make their own stupid proprietary apps and die in a corner. Stop infecting the rest of us with your insanity!
DRM is simply folly. It DOES NOTHING but make the DRM makers richer and irritates everyone. Cut it out already. Takes a special kind of stupid to recognize what you're proposing is stupid but going ahead with it anyway. Stop the stupid.
Back in the day, when advertising on the web was just a simple banner ad that appeared on a page, things were good, we didn't feel a need to install advertising blockers, cuz they weren't disruptive to our experience of web browsing.
Fast forward and the rise of pop ups, pop under, video, sound, splitting articles into multiple pages so you get more advertising thrust in your face. So most of us said enough is enough and the rise of the ad blocker occurred. And now they wonder why advertising is so ineffective? You guys did it to yourselves, you made yourselves so frickin' obnoxious and a bane of the browsing experience, we've tuned you out, either with our brains solely, or with technology to assist in removing your garbage from our monitors.
While it may not be how our founding fathers envisioned things, the people in power are quite content with how things are turning out.
Disenfranchise so many voters that they simply don't even care about it anymore. Make voting as painful and unpleasant as possible with absolutely no reward. Make it seem utterly pointless. Also ensure that every campaign promise remains unfilled and forgotten, so people feel totally conned and don't bother in the next election.
All is as it is supposed to be, according to the few and powerful.
If every eligible voter in this country actually voted, the entire system would likely implode. Our system could not even come close to handling a proper turnout. It's not designed to.
And if in young minds, the right to SMS is more valuable than the right to vote, well, we are lost. Doomed to follow in the path of the ancient Romans. Was a good run though.
Learn a skill? UBI is a long way off (if ever). So stop waiting for it.
This canned response to "omg my job is being automated!" is so worn out. There are simply not enough skilled jobs to accommodate the glut of skill you're advocating everyone go about getting. That's why UBI is such an important social issue.
There's only so many college-degree requiring jobs, and if you flood that market with freshly trained people... I think you can see the problem.
Automation isn't the threat, it's the future. How we as a society decide to distribute the productivity rewards of automation is what's up for debate. And telling people "Get some skills." is definitely not even going to begin to solve the problem.
It's funny that Kodi is willing to fight trademark trolls but they seem to show little sincere interest in fighting piracy.....
Yawn. This sort of attack could be used against just about any computer technology in existence. They all facilitate criminality to a degree. Piracy of content is a symptom of a greedy content creators making their junk too expensive or difficult to access legally. No tears for them here.
History is basically the working class trying and failing to pry money out of the hands of the ruling class. Why the hell people don't see this is beyond me.
Just because people can see something doesn't mean there's jack-shit they can do about it. I think most Americans can see what's been going on, but they're powerless to change anything, so they just keep getting screwed over and over and over.
Let's just take a look at Amazon for a moment. I watched some news articles about them. Their warehouses already feature a lot of automation.
The only thing they need humans for is to take stuff off shelves (that robots bring to them) and put in boxes to fulfill orders. And you can bet your wallet as soon as Amazon figures out how to automate that, those jobs are gone. Poof. And yes, they definitely do intend to automate that, they're working on prototypes and ideas as I write this.
Automation is going to be a very huge disruptive force, and as it starts to happen, it will accelerate ever faster, just like computers did from 1980's to now.
Right now, we haven't reached that critical point where automation is going to displace workers. There's enough 'other' jobs to offset what automation replaces. But you're kidding yourself if you think that's going to hold. It's going to flip to the other side very soon.
You don't understand anti trust so I shall explain.
Google is allowed to have a monopoly, such as search as long as they got it by being better.
You obviously don't understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly is when one company has so much dominance in a market that there are no competitors. And any attempt to 'rise' by a competitor is quashed by the monopoly. Read about Bell Systems circa 1950-1984 for a view on what a monopoly looks like.
Google is doing no such thing. They are not quashing other search engines or advertising networks. They're just good at what they do and their competitors aren't very good (yet.) But that's not Google's fault, they're not doing anything overtly to competitors other than just being superior to them. That's not a monopoly, nor is it anti-trust.
Google's dominance is only due to no one else being able to build a competitive system to challenge their dominance. And frankly, most people aren't even interested in doing this. Microsoft was, hence the rise of Bing. But even with the power of Microsoft behind Bing, they are still behind Google in usage. That's customers making a choice based on excellence and performance. No monopoly here, sorry, moving along.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, its not like letsencrypt offering automated certificates for free had anything to do with it.
It was google showing a message about http being insecure.
We might not like to admit that, but that is the truth of it. Sure Let's Encrypt is great, use it myself. But you can bet your wallet Let's Encrypt had little to do with this shift. People don't like being branded 'insecure.' It looks bad. It looks inferior. It looks... uhh.. Insecure. Google pushing that had a huge effect. A visible indication your site is a security risk. That is the motivator right there, not freebie certs, though they didn't hurt.
You're too quick go give them credit. Follow the money trail. HTTPS and SPDY makes it far easier to ensure that ads are transmitted, and to whom. That HTTPS largely defeats anonymous proxy caching and other techniques that makes counting ad impressions harder is why Google pursues it; security is how they sell it, despite it being slower, to a high degree defeats bandwidth saving techniques, and requires extra resources on both server and client endpoints.
I'm ok with this. Computing power is cheap and only getting cheap and better. Also don't like having third-party intermediaries caching my stuff. Bandwidth is cheap too. Who cares? Besides you.
There's little reason why publicly available non-controversial information should be encrypted, and that makes up the majority of the web.
You don't get it? Privacy. I really don't give a flying f if I'm looking a recipe for peanut butter cookies, it's no one elses business and HTTPS means you have no idea what I'm looking at, just which server.
Despite Google's other not so nice activities, I gotta give them a thumbs-up here. Getting the web to transition away from HTTP to HTTPS is fantastic. There's no reason for skimping on your web server anymore, encryption is easy and even crappy virutal machines can serve up HTTPS without issue. Good job Google.
As a side effect, this action they've promoted and encouraged mitigates the new WPA2 insecurity quite nicely. Not such a big deal if WPA2 is broken into, only to expose lots of HTTPS and/or VPN tunneling, and you're back to the drawing board. You just can't have enough security and layers of encryption.
Does it ever seem like no matter what we do, it's wrong? From so many directions our impending doom approaches.. from nuclear war, climate change, and other ecological disasters, like this and bee colony collapse.
Maybe we should all watch more of Primitive Technology on Youtube, seems like we're going to have to learn how to live like that again sometime sooner than expected, if at all.
Also, treat bug hunters a little better, eh? When Timmy emails you about your stupid php mistakes, instead of calling the FBI, having him arrested, dragged into court, prosecuted, jailed, while your bug is still there, how about instead patting Timmy on the head and giving him a 5 or 6 digit payoff for telling you and tell him to keep looking for more mistakes.
Another simple helping hand: Bug-bounties need to be hefty. They need to pay more than crime does. Until they do, people who find this stuff will sell it to criminals instead of you. You gotta pay more than the criminals for your sloppiness.
I think it's really simple. Money is what motivates pretty much everything. So when a company's negligence results in criminal activity adversely affecting a person, that company will need to pay to make it right. Make you whole again, plain and simple, whatever it takes. They pay for it all.
Also I think making security marketing bulletpoint would help. Companies that get hacked get a reputation for getting hacked and die off. Companies that example good security by not getting hacked get a sort of 'years of no hacks' award or something and can tout that "20 years of no hacks." Make it a competition! Hell companies will start TRYING to hack each other to dethrone the longest no hacks. Nothing like competition to spur innovation.
A double-tap, or a tap followed by verbal, or something that the user finds satisfactory.
Because, at least in my opinion, Google likes the way Apple does things. And well, Apple likes to say, 'this isn't suitable, you can't do this anymore.' instead of just making it an option you can decide yourself.
Freedom of choice is too much power for lowly users, sorry. Also sometimes letting someone decide can lead to litigation, so.. cover your ass and all that.
Well, considering all you have is criticism for Linux, and obviously no intention of giving it a fair shake, I'm done with you. Good luck with Windows 10!
But I have to wonder, 22 minutes to boot, whacha trying to run it on, a 80486 with a MFM HDD?? Puhleeze. I have Celeron laptops right here that will boot Mint in less than 5 minutes. I think you're exaggerating and just dissing Mint to diss. Have fun with that.
The rest of you skeptics reading, give Mint a try. And if making a bootable USB from an ISO is rocket science, grab a copy of Rufus (for Windows) and use that to put your ISO image onto a USB stick for easy booting. Don't even have to google for instructions, I've given you all you need!
You missed the biggest contender for Linux desktop worthiness. Linux Mint. Which runs out of the box on just about any hardware I've thrown at it. It's reasonably friendly and reasonably easy to use. I highly recommend trying it. You can even get it on a Live bootable USB so you don't even need to put it on your hard drive to play with it.
All I got to say is.. when I launched Civilization 6 on my Linux desktop, it just said 'Error cannot continue.' No other messages.
Which is sad, cuz Factorio runs great and Steam itself runs fine too.
Linux desktop has made huge strides toward usability for anyone, but.. it's not "there" yet. Getting there, getting better every day.
Google already has earned a reputation for taking things away without recourse. You are Google's bitch if you use their stuff. Like Apple, Google will decide what is useful to you, regardless of your input.
I dunno. $4 for a pack of 21 1-liter bottles of water from Costco doesn't seem like a budget breaking decision.
And I'll be frank, tap water is disgusting almost everywhere. It might just be tap water they're putting into the bottles, but there's some serious filtration going on, that makes that water tastes 2000X better than tap water.
But personally, I only use bottled water when I drink it directly. For coffee, food prep, or anything else that needs water, the tap is fine.
For what it's worth, if you're like me and MUST have bottled water, at least make a responsible decision regarding buying it: Buy the largest containers you can. I like the 1-liter bottles myself. But not long ago, I had to use bottled water for everything, in that case, I bought my own 1 gallon jugs and refilled them. You can use bottled water is an environmentally less-impacting manner. Definitely don't buy small bottles, that is not cool.
This has absolutely nothing to do with nerds, technology, internet, or anything even close. It's a food company putting water in bottles. WTF. Not news that matters.
The trouble with DRM is that it's sort of ineffective. It tends to make things inconvenient for people who legitimately bought a song or movie while failing to stop piracy.
Glad someone is learning, finally.
Yet,
The content providers require that a key part of the system be closed source,
You still want to go down this road? Knowing all too well, it's not going to work. It's not going to stop piracy. It's going to irritate legitimate customers. And the Open Source community will not touch proprietary stuff.
Must this insanity continue? It's all wrapped into one post! They know it's stupid and ineffective, but they're going ahead with it anyway? I'd rather they all just make their own stupid proprietary apps and die in a corner. Stop infecting the rest of us with your insanity!
DRM is simply folly. It DOES NOTHING but make the DRM makers richer and irritates everyone. Cut it out already. Takes a special kind of stupid to recognize what you're proposing is stupid but going ahead with it anyway. Stop the stupid.
Back in the day, when advertising on the web was just a simple banner ad that appeared on a page, things were good, we didn't feel a need to install advertising blockers, cuz they weren't disruptive to our experience of web browsing.
Fast forward and the rise of pop ups, pop under, video, sound, splitting articles into multiple pages so you get more advertising thrust in your face. So most of us said enough is enough and the rise of the ad blocker occurred. And now they wonder why advertising is so ineffective? You guys did it to yourselves, you made yourselves so frickin' obnoxious and a bane of the browsing experience, we've tuned you out, either with our brains solely, or with technology to assist in removing your garbage from our monitors.
While it may not be how our founding fathers envisioned things, the people in power are quite content with how things are turning out.
Disenfranchise so many voters that they simply don't even care about it anymore. Make voting as painful and unpleasant as possible with absolutely no reward. Make it seem utterly pointless. Also ensure that every campaign promise remains unfilled and forgotten, so people feel totally conned and don't bother in the next election.
All is as it is supposed to be, according to the few and powerful.
If every eligible voter in this country actually voted, the entire system would likely implode. Our system could not even come close to handling a proper turnout. It's not designed to.
And if in young minds, the right to SMS is more valuable than the right to vote, well, we are lost. Doomed to follow in the path of the ancient Romans. Was a good run though.
Learn a skill? UBI is a long way off (if ever). So stop waiting for it.
This canned response to "omg my job is being automated!" is so worn out. There are simply not enough skilled jobs to accommodate the glut of skill you're advocating everyone go about getting. That's why UBI is such an important social issue.
There's only so many college-degree requiring jobs, and if you flood that market with freshly trained people... I think you can see the problem.
Automation isn't the threat, it's the future. How we as a society decide to distribute the productivity rewards of automation is what's up for debate. And telling people "Get some skills." is definitely not even going to begin to solve the problem.
If you're an employee of Amazon and 90% of your time isn't spent behind a keyboard, you're on borrowed time. S'all I got to say.
Google is now evil.
It's funny that Kodi is willing to fight trademark trolls but they seem to show little sincere interest in fighting piracy. ....
Yawn. This sort of attack could be used against just about any computer technology in existence. They all facilitate criminality to a degree. Piracy of content is a symptom of a greedy content creators making their junk too expensive or difficult to access legally. No tears for them here.
History is basically the working class trying and failing to pry money out of the hands of the ruling class. Why the hell people don't see this is beyond me.
Just because people can see something doesn't mean there's jack-shit they can do about it. I think most Americans can see what's been going on, but they're powerless to change anything, so they just keep getting screwed over and over and over.
Let's just take a look at Amazon for a moment. I watched some news articles about them. Their warehouses already feature a lot of automation.
The only thing they need humans for is to take stuff off shelves (that robots bring to them) and put in boxes to fulfill orders. And you can bet your wallet as soon as Amazon figures out how to automate that, those jobs are gone. Poof. And yes, they definitely do intend to automate that, they're working on prototypes and ideas as I write this.
Automation is going to be a very huge disruptive force, and as it starts to happen, it will accelerate ever faster, just like computers did from 1980's to now.
Right now, we haven't reached that critical point where automation is going to displace workers. There's enough 'other' jobs to offset what automation replaces. But you're kidding yourself if you think that's going to hold. It's going to flip to the other side very soon.
They have plenty of power. They have the power to sue.
Only if you give them something to sue you over.
They have the power to buy you up.
Only if you are willing to sell.
They have the power to influence legislation.
So do you. So do I. Everyone has this influence. Some more than others.
They have the power to head hunt your talent.
So do you. So do I. Everyone has this option. Some more than others.
They have any other power that money might buy, including libel, espionage, sabotage, and murder.
Now you're just being silly.
You don't understand anti trust so I shall explain.
Google is allowed to have a monopoly, such as search as long as they got it by being better.
You obviously don't understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly is when one company has so much dominance in a market that there are no competitors. And any attempt to 'rise' by a competitor is quashed by the monopoly. Read about Bell Systems circa 1950-1984 for a view on what a monopoly looks like.
Google is doing no such thing. They are not quashing other search engines or advertising networks. They're just good at what they do and their competitors aren't very good (yet.) But that's not Google's fault, they're not doing anything overtly to competitors other than just being superior to them. That's not a monopoly, nor is it anti-trust.
Google's dominance is only due to no one else being able to build a competitive system to challenge their dominance. And frankly, most people aren't even interested in doing this. Microsoft was, hence the rise of Bing. But even with the power of Microsoft behind Bing, they are still behind Google in usage. That's customers making a choice based on excellence and performance. No monopoly here, sorry, moving along.