You don't half come across as an apologist for these firms. Unless you were intimately involved in the case then you don't know why they settled so quickly, and frankly settling doesn't seem to have saved them much in terms of PR so if you think that was their intent then you clearly don't think they're that smart. The companies could easily have afforded the lawsuit so the expense issue is a non-excuse to begin with, and if what they were doing was in no way holding back pay then why bother? Why would someone from Google who was being paid fairly for their job be tempted to move to Apple based on an approach if Apple were going to pay them the same amount? There's no answer that makes sense (and before you say maybe they wanted to work for Apple; it should be pretty obvious that if they did then they'd contact Apple rather than waiting to see if Apple contacted them).
In that circumstance if you follow the order you're only going to get shot if the people who gave you the orders lose; which is exactly why that circumstance is so wrong. Even knowing that you'll be held accountable if your side loses isn't a disincentive, so you're you're punishing people whose only alternative was execution. You can bet that if the Japanese had somehow won WWII they'd have had everyone involved in the nuclear bombing executed for war crimes, so the lesson appears to be don't be born on the side that might lose a major conflict...
In this case it however that all seems rather irrelevant. The worst thing that could have happened here if Arnnon had some principles is he'd have had to have found a high paying job somewhere else instead.
So you're suggesting that the government can't restrict you from being a passenger in a vehicle in case stop you from assembling but it can restrict you from operating a vehicle even if it that would stop you from assembling? Because the right to assemble, and other rights granted by the constitution, can be withheld if you don't have the appropriate government license?
One would assume that if you're going to monitor driver performance based on things like phone accelerometers (in my case the vehicles are fitted with a dedicated device) that you'd tell the driver and they'd be smart enough not to throw it around the car...
The driver who is aware of their surroundings but drives in places with crazy drivers will break a lot and sometimes hard, but not cause accidents
Citation needed, or are you just making stuff up because it 'sounds right' to you. Our drivers do the best part of a million hours driving a year so I'll base my position on the results of that data, and the fact that our insurers discount based on exactly the factors you're claiming would increase accidents thanks.
What you're talking about isn't an issue. You don't analyse driving based on samples small enough that one incident of hard breaking is going to flag up as an issue. We analyse our fleets performance and the smallest interval we'll typically do any analysis for is ~50 hours driving. A driver would have to show a consistent bias towards excessive breaking over weeks before we'd investigate further. In our case we'd then look up the incidents on the dashcam before taking any action, but with thresholds set right the odds of a completely innocent driver being pulled up will be negligible.
One must be able to go to where the assembly is taking place, if air travel is the only reasonably way to get there due to say time constraints, the government cannot prevent a citizen from traveling by air, without due process of law.
This seems like an arbitrary line to draw, especially as an example of why it is wrong to draw an arbitrary line counting privacy as part of the right. Surely requiring people have a driving license would breach your definition, how else could they reasonably reach a remote location within time constraints... One of the issues with treating defined rights as guidelines on what is allowed, no matter how openly interpreted, is that it's too open to different interpretations and abuse by those who control what interpretation is used. Much better to focus on what the government has the explicit right to do instead. Thus the question should be how do they have the authority to do this?
If you're dumb enough to ask questions like that, do you disclose it when interviewing people so they can decide whether they want to work for you so they can make an informed decision?
Because the highest value in socialism is politics and LOOKING like you're doing something... not making sure you make best use of your resources.
At least with capitalism there's feedback in the system so that when resources do get excessively wasted somebody can actually get in there, make more efficient use of them and... eat your lunch.
A pretty terrible example. Just look at the mind bogglingly large amount of money the US government spends on pointless pork barrel projects especially in defence. Hell the entire war in Afghanistan was started because the President needed to LOOK like he was doing something in response to 9/11. If you consider China socialist, then the fact that China has been growing vastly faster than the US, which you consider capitalist, somewhat undermines your position.
There's always someone who is selling premium products, it's easy to shrug your shoulders and say you don't have a choice but it's very rarely true. As an example: you can still buy handmade scissors made in Sheffield though you won't find them in most major retailers because the can sell something that looks roughly the same for a tiny fraction of the price.
My issue with things like user reviews for tools and other things that I desire a long working life from is that they are written soon after purchase so don't account for longevity. Amazon gets a huge proportion of my business, but tools are one thing I haven't tended to buy from there in the past. I've wasted enough time in the past working with poorly made equipment or consumables (cheap screwbits being a particular pet peeve) to have learnt the value of decent kit the hard way.
To respond to myself, reading a bit more into this the problem is bigger than the previous summary says. The exploit is able to make LastPass logout, making the prompt and even request for the 2nd factor code less suspicious. In short, although it requires users to miss a couple of reasonably subtle signs this is a real security shortcoming that they need to address.
Thanks for the summary. Though I'm not sure why it's seen to be such a big issue. Firstly LastPass supports multiple two-factor authentication methods, so even if someone using this fell for it you still couldn't access their vault. Secondly, there's a LastPass icon on the topbar of the browser. It is red if you are logged in, and greyed out if you are not, and you have to click it to bring up the password prompt. If I saw the login prompt with a red icon I know something is wrong, if I see the prompt without clicking on the icon then something is wrong.
Perhaps they attack does more than simply mimic the look of the prompt, but based on your summary it's an attack that relies on user mistakes and poor security practice.
I chose a Nest for one reason. The job I had at the time involved lots of travel, sometimes with limited or short notice...
In an extreme case like this it makes plenty of sense, I think the issue is however that very few people have such unpredictable heating needs. Even you highlight that not being able to switch on before you get home is no big issue even in your edge case. Products like Nest aren't intended to just sell to the 5% (or whatever) of odd cases, but the benefits to most people are pretty nominal.
I think its a pretty strait forward mens rea question, did you know or should your reasonably have know you were materially contributing to the violation of human rights.
Why only human rights abuse and not general criminality? Besides which the definition you are using is effectively pointless. If that was the law then China could have either been less open about their intentions, or if that wasn't enough they could have bought them through an intermediary.
Yes it would, and I full appreciate that you didn't all vote for Bush. However, the post I was responding to said Shareholders should be punished for the actions of companies they invest in, it didn't say only shareholders that knowingly voted for or were aware of the illegal actions; the equivalent in an election would be holding everyone who could have voted responsible for the result (which is obviously a stupid thing to do).
The only way to even dream of making companies not do this is to make the decision makers and eventually the shareholders liable for crimes against humanity personally
Can all Americans who had the right to vote during the 2005 election please make their way to the local incarceration centre? Your crime is being the decision makers who elected someone known to support the use of torture... apparently this is the only way to change things, so nothing personal.
Where do you draw the line though? Can we add the people who provided materials to build and create Guantanamo bay to the list of companies that should be punished, the people who make the navigation software used in aircraft performing extraordinary renditions...
I want to know that Cisco knowingly produced products for this purpose and it influences my view on the company, but that's a long way from thinking they should have criminal liability for it.
Because the negotiators are acutely aware that if the TPP had been public knowledge for the last several years, there'd be at best another Battle in Seattle type of debacle, and that the people governed by the treaty wouldn't stand for it.
The thing is, if that was true then a candidates who promised to repeal it would be popular at the next election and I seriously doubt the average voter will care about it as an issue. You have democratic accountability, if they use 'secret' negotiations to come up with something the public don't like then the public has the capability to vote in people who will repeal it.
You can, and I would, argue against doing this, but it's still 100x better than what government's are actually asking for and likely going to get.
The government wants to be able to decrypt anything immediately and is willing to force weakpoints into encryption to do it. This makes messages less secure if anyone wants to decrypt them and gives the government the ability to decrypt everything. Requiring disclosure of passwords in court provides a number of benefits (vs that terrible system): The courts may not do everything the government wants, you can always refuse (lets say if people you care about could be harmed if disclosed), and the encryption remains strong meaning your messages are more secure against other attackers.
The reason we have the right to wield guns is not to defend ourselves against other people. It is to defend ourselves against the government. If only the government can have weapons, it quickly becomes impossible to fight for other rights being taken from you.
Which is a quaint little notion but absolute bollocks in reality. Exactly how fucked up do you think your country is that it is only the prevalence of private firearms that stops your government taking your rights away; besides which you seem to be losing plenty of rights and you sure as hell have plenty of firearms so why isn't it working?
If the government had the full and absolute support of the military then even if it did something sufficient to bring about an armed uprising that armed uprising will be entirely outmatched by the military. If the government doesn't have the support of the military then you don't need an armed rebellion because without the support of the military the government can't resist an unarmed rebellion.
If stopping the government having military power over the people was a priority you'd have to vastly decrease the size of the military and vastly expand the range of weapons that citizens could own (to include weapons like fighter jets, anti-aircraft missiles etc), letting people dick around with assault rifles for a hobby isn't going to cut it.
Yes. Drones by Muse is a recent major example. The Streets concept album A grand don't come for free is brilliant (though not typically my style of music).
Of course yes, why the hell go throw the worries of having a legal system and legal forces to enact it when we can have some random vigilante telling apart what can and cannot be done.
I let people into my house based on who I trust, recommendations from trusted sources etc. You might see that as random vigilantism but the government doesn't offer it, nor do I desire it to, provide recommendations on every individual. You don't have a legal right for your emails to reach me etc so why the hell would the legal system be the right place to decide whose emails I should accept.
Facebook exists in another reality distortion field, one where money comes easily.
Facebook's primary product is offered to 'users' free, if you're argument was close to the truth then they'd be trying to charge everyone $200 a year for having a Facebook account; and they aren't. Furthermore Facebook brought in huge amount of investment while it lost money for years. It's investors and senior management all have experience of operating at a loss for an extended period in order to build a product.
As to blaming Facebook for the price of electronics, you might as well blame Boeing for the fact you can't go out and buy an A380 for $10.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't half come across as an apologist for these firms. Unless you were intimately involved in the case then you don't know why they settled so quickly, and frankly settling doesn't seem to have saved them much in terms of PR so if you think that was their intent then you clearly don't think they're that smart. The companies could easily have afforded the lawsuit so the expense issue is a non-excuse to begin with, and if what they were doing was in no way holding back pay then why bother? Why would someone from Google who was being paid fairly for their job be tempted to move to Apple based on an approach if Apple were going to pay them the same amount? There's no answer that makes sense (and before you say maybe they wanted to work for Apple; it should be pretty obvious that if they did then they'd contact Apple rather than waiting to see if Apple contacted them).
In that circumstance if you follow the order you're only going to get shot if the people who gave you the orders lose; which is exactly why that circumstance is so wrong. Even knowing that you'll be held accountable if your side loses isn't a disincentive, so you're you're punishing people whose only alternative was execution. You can bet that if the Japanese had somehow won WWII they'd have had everyone involved in the nuclear bombing executed for war crimes, so the lesson appears to be don't be born on the side that might lose a major conflict...
In this case it however that all seems rather irrelevant. The worst thing that could have happened here if Arnnon had some principles is he'd have had to have found a high paying job somewhere else instead.
So you're suggesting that the government can't restrict you from being a passenger in a vehicle in case stop you from assembling but it can restrict you from operating a vehicle even if it that would stop you from assembling? Because the right to assemble, and other rights granted by the constitution, can be withheld if you don't have the appropriate government license?
One would assume that if you're going to monitor driver performance based on things like phone accelerometers (in my case the vehicles are fitted with a dedicated device) that you'd tell the driver and they'd be smart enough not to throw it around the car...
Citation needed, or are you just making stuff up because it 'sounds right' to you. Our drivers do the best part of a million hours driving a year so I'll base my position on the results of that data, and the fact that our insurers discount based on exactly the factors you're claiming would increase accidents thanks.
What you're talking about isn't an issue. You don't analyse driving based on samples small enough that one incident of hard breaking is going to flag up as an issue. We analyse our fleets performance and the smallest interval we'll typically do any analysis for is ~50 hours driving. A driver would have to show a consistent bias towards excessive breaking over weeks before we'd investigate further. In our case we'd then look up the incidents on the dashcam before taking any action, but with thresholds set right the odds of a completely innocent driver being pulled up will be negligible.
This seems like an arbitrary line to draw, especially as an example of why it is wrong to draw an arbitrary line counting privacy as part of the right. Surely requiring people have a driving license would breach your definition, how else could they reasonably reach a remote location within time constraints... One of the issues with treating defined rights as guidelines on what is allowed, no matter how openly interpreted, is that it's too open to different interpretations and abuse by those who control what interpretation is used. Much better to focus on what the government has the explicit right to do instead. Thus the question should be how do they have the authority to do this?
If you're dumb enough to ask questions like that, do you disclose it when interviewing people so they can decide whether they want to work for you so they can make an informed decision?
A pretty terrible example. Just look at the mind bogglingly large amount of money the US government spends on pointless pork barrel projects especially in defence. Hell the entire war in Afghanistan was started because the President needed to LOOK like he was doing something in response to 9/11. If you consider China socialist, then the fact that China has been growing vastly faster than the US, which you consider capitalist, somewhat undermines your position.
There's always someone who is selling premium products, it's easy to shrug your shoulders and say you don't have a choice but it's very rarely true. As an example: you can still buy handmade scissors made in Sheffield though you won't find them in most major retailers because the can sell something that looks roughly the same for a tiny fraction of the price.
My issue with things like user reviews for tools and other things that I desire a long working life from is that they are written soon after purchase so don't account for longevity. Amazon gets a huge proportion of my business, but tools are one thing I haven't tended to buy from there in the past. I've wasted enough time in the past working with poorly made equipment or consumables (cheap screwbits being a particular pet peeve) to have learnt the value of decent kit the hard way.
To respond to myself, reading a bit more into this the problem is bigger than the previous summary says. The exploit is able to make LastPass logout, making the prompt and even request for the 2nd factor code less suspicious. In short, although it requires users to miss a couple of reasonably subtle signs this is a real security shortcoming that they need to address.
Thanks for the summary. Though I'm not sure why it's seen to be such a big issue. Firstly LastPass supports multiple two-factor authentication methods, so even if someone using this fell for it you still couldn't access their vault. Secondly, there's a LastPass icon on the topbar of the browser. It is red if you are logged in, and greyed out if you are not, and you have to click it to bring up the password prompt. If I saw the login prompt with a red icon I know something is wrong, if I see the prompt without clicking on the icon then something is wrong.
Perhaps they attack does more than simply mimic the look of the prompt, but based on your summary it's an attack that relies on user mistakes and poor security practice.
In an extreme case like this it makes plenty of sense, I think the issue is however that very few people have such unpredictable heating needs. Even you highlight that not being able to switch on before you get home is no big issue even in your edge case. Products like Nest aren't intended to just sell to the 5% (or whatever) of odd cases, but the benefits to most people are pretty nominal.
Why only human rights abuse and not general criminality? Besides which the definition you are using is effectively pointless. If that was the law then China could have either been less open about their intentions, or if that wasn't enough they could have bought them through an intermediary.
Yes it would, and I full appreciate that you didn't all vote for Bush. However, the post I was responding to said Shareholders should be punished for the actions of companies they invest in, it didn't say only shareholders that knowingly voted for or were aware of the illegal actions; the equivalent in an election would be holding everyone who could have voted responsible for the result (which is obviously a stupid thing to do).
Can all Americans who had the right to vote during the 2005 election please make their way to the local incarceration centre? Your crime is being the decision makers who elected someone known to support the use of torture... apparently this is the only way to change things, so nothing personal.
Where do you draw the line though? Can we add the people who provided materials to build and create Guantanamo bay to the list of companies that should be punished, the people who make the navigation software used in aircraft performing extraordinary renditions...
I want to know that Cisco knowingly produced products for this purpose and it influences my view on the company, but that's a long way from thinking they should have criminal liability for it.
The thing is, if that was true then a candidates who promised to repeal it would be popular at the next election and I seriously doubt the average voter will care about it as an issue. You have democratic accountability, if they use 'secret' negotiations to come up with something the public don't like then the public has the capability to vote in people who will repeal it.
You can, and I would, argue against doing this, but it's still 100x better than what government's are actually asking for and likely going to get.
The government wants to be able to decrypt anything immediately and is willing to force weakpoints into encryption to do it. This makes messages less secure if anyone wants to decrypt them and gives the government the ability to decrypt everything. Requiring disclosure of passwords in court provides a number of benefits (vs that terrible system): The courts may not do everything the government wants, you can always refuse (lets say if people you care about could be harmed if disclosed), and the encryption remains strong meaning your messages are more secure against other attackers.
Grandparent falsely claims the French President has been given powers due to a terrorist attack and is modded +4 informative.
:( it's only informative if it's what you want to hear...
Parent explains how that is not the case, with sufficient information for anyone to check it and is left at +1.
User moderation at its finest
Which is a quaint little notion but absolute bollocks in reality. Exactly how fucked up do you think your country is that it is only the prevalence of private firearms that stops your government taking your rights away; besides which you seem to be losing plenty of rights and you sure as hell have plenty of firearms so why isn't it working?
If the government had the full and absolute support of the military then even if it did something sufficient to bring about an armed uprising that armed uprising will be entirely outmatched by the military. If the government doesn't have the support of the military then you don't need an armed rebellion because without the support of the military the government can't resist an unarmed rebellion.
If stopping the government having military power over the people was a priority you'd have to vastly decrease the size of the military and vastly expand the range of weapons that citizens could own (to include weapons like fighter jets, anti-aircraft missiles etc), letting people dick around with assault rifles for a hobby isn't going to cut it.
Yes. Drones by Muse is a recent major example. The Streets concept album A grand don't come for free is brilliant (though not typically my style of music).
I let people into my house based on who I trust, recommendations from trusted sources etc. You might see that as random vigilantism but the government doesn't offer it, nor do I desire it to, provide recommendations on every individual. You don't have a legal right for your emails to reach me etc so why the hell would the legal system be the right place to decide whose emails I should accept.
Facebook's primary product is offered to 'users' free, if you're argument was close to the truth then they'd be trying to charge everyone $200 a year for having a Facebook account; and they aren't. Furthermore Facebook brought in huge amount of investment while it lost money for years. It's investors and senior management all have experience of operating at a loss for an extended period in order to build a product.
As to blaming Facebook for the price of electronics, you might as well blame Boeing for the fact you can't go out and buy an A380 for $10.