Parody is fine under copyright law. Flickr has no problem with copyrighted images of Bush being photoshopped. Censoring speech is oppression. So oppression does exist here.
Another poster said they are searching for images of both Bush and Obama. They can't find any positive images of Bush, in fact they found several particularly nasty ones. Conversely, they couldn't find any negative/parody images of Obama.
1 - I won't say Bush is a great President by any means. No one likes him. But you can contend that he preserved more life by going into Iraq than what was lost. Future generations also need to be considered. Any military conflict has civilian causalities. When one side is not wearing uniforms, using human shields, bombing civilians intentionally, etc. civilian causalities are going to be very high. However, millions of people are being liberated. And it wasn't like the situation was great before we got there. Towns had water shut off. Kurds were living in caves for fear of their lives.
I'm curious that no one discusses situations like Liberia, where Bush helped save lives and negotiate a peaceful surrender of a bloodthirsty dictator without firing a single bullet. Bush was a "line-in-the-sand" conservative, but you can't honestly believe that he wanted to kill innocent people. I really don't get ignorant statements like that.
2 - Obama has always been against Iraq. And he promised to end the war. He hasn't pulled out yet. So is he responsible for lives lost in Iraq? And since Obama supports conflict in Afghanistan, is he responsible for civilians killed there? At least be consistent in your logic (or lack there of).
Is that the same war that all the major Democrats voted for?
And was it the same Iraq that Clinton bombed without asking permission? Was it the same Iraq that Clinton said was pursing WMD? Was it the same Iraq that had rape/torture rooms in the police offices, shut off water to towns, and was keeping food out? Was it the same Iraq were 30 million lives were in jeopardy, and the people thanked the US for liberating them?
In reality, both parties supported going into Iraq. You can question whether or not the war was justified (despite Iraq violating over 75 security resolutions, and the UN saying if they weren't 100% complicit, then the cease-fire of 1991 was null and void, authorizing military intervention). But you can't pin the war on one person. The President can't go to war. Congress goes to war. And Congress had no problem with it.
You were one of many people to respond with this exact sentiment. I'll just respond to you.
I know that a private site has the right to moderate as they see fit. This isn't the removal of pornography, or racist material, illegal material, or any of the usual suspects that would warrant such a removal.
This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions. Does Flickr have the right? It is their site, so yes they do.
Should Flickr censor people however? No. I would hope the democratic principles that supposedly infuse this country would be reflected by US businesses to a certain extent. I hope this turns into the Streisand Effect, wherein trying to censor this image, they only bring far more attention to themselves.
The point is that Peter kept saying these games will feature unparalleled immersion and choice. In reality, they offered far less immersion and choice than existing titles. Heck, compare Fable to Ultima VII (a game that shipped on floppy disks for crying out loud). Peter Molyneaux needs to stop promising 10 times as many features as he can deliver.
Both were hyped up as complete game-changers that would shake the industry in how immersive they were, and the amount of choice you'd have. First off, you couldn't even play a female character in Fable. He has yet to deliver on 10% of past promises. So excuse me while I withhold my excitement for Fable 3.
As long as I can get the user to visit my site and load up my malware I can spew spam, I can DDOS, etc.
Not true. If neither the user nor app have admin/root access, and you're using a secure browser (say, Chrome) then your malicious web site can't do squat. The biggest hole here right now would be that plugins aren't fully sandboxed, and Acrobat has a serious vulnerability every other week. But that is partially why I keep recommending to businesses to use Foxit as opposed to Acrobat.
Both of the two enterprise environments I've worked in have used proprietary legacy apps that "need" admin rights.
Most of the time, all the app really needs is write access to a certain folder. However, in the rare instance that the process truly does need administrator access, I make the app/process into a Windows service that starts automatically at login with System level access. The user doesn't have admin access, and other apps don't. That one app is elevated.
My wifi has never dropped. And the PS3 supports video bookmarks, so any video you're watching, it should resume at that spot. But wifi is always a little iffy.
Sony is offering a deal where you can get $100 off a PS3 is you apply for the Playstation credit card. When I did it, I got $150 off. It isn't a mail in rebate or anything. They instantly reduce the price of the console by applying for, and purchasing with the new Playstation card.
If they keep the promotion with the new discounted price tomorrow, then you can have a PS3 for $199.
Unix was designed from day 1 with the notion that it is a multi-user system that needs serious integrated security. Windows was designed for a home PC with a single user. It wasn't designed with the notion that it would be on the internet, or need much in the way of security.
It isn't to say that we couldn't have forseen security concerns to design it correctly in the first place. Most *nix systems were always designed this way. Windows opted not to follow that model.
Don't underestimate sharks with friggen laser beams!
I agree that Social Engineering is likely the number one threat in many cases.
UAC is security theater in that people are trained to simply click allow, absolving Microsoft of responsibility.
What I mean by true security is sandboxing and accountability. Look at Chrome's design, in that a browser window (process) has limited access to data on your HDD.
Users in an enterprise environment frankly shouldn't have access to install software at all. And the more I think about it, I wonder if not only thin-client remote terminals are the way to go for the future, but temporary kiosk sessions as well.
Lastly, a really good file system from a security standpoint should not only have an access time, but log the user who accessed it at that time.
Education is the best weapon to combat social engineering (and it isn't that hard to tell people NEVER give out your password), but a well designed system certainly helps.
Perhaps I should included my title in my post. No doubt this useful given the current situation. But we wouldn't be in this position so much if we had well designed systems in place from day 1.
I do think this is interesting how we can use massive data sets to predict and map trends so much quicker. But I'd rather not have to worry about them in the first place.
* 120 gig HDD. * Built in wifi-fi. * Streams all my media content from my computer. * Top-notch BluRay player. * Built in web browser * Oh, and plays games.
I think it is a great value actually, But to each their own.
Penny Arcade covered this. PlayOn will give you Hulu and Netflix access on your PS3. You have to pay a one-time charge for PlayOn, but that is cheaper than 4 months of XBox Live.
If it was anyone other than Google, I'd be skeptical of the hype. But this isn't buzz-words. This is a (mostly) working protocol and platform to honestly really change the way we work and communicate.
Watch the video. Drink the Kool-aid.
What I'm really curious about is whether or not Facebook will fully embrace Wave, which is an open protocol. They can use it without giving Google a dime, but it still would be Facebook (partially owned by Microsoft) helping to adopt and steer a Google protocol.
Yet, if Facebook ignores Wave, I think Wave could be the "killer-app" that helps drive the next social network to tne mumber one spot.
Slashdot Mirror
I am calling them liars.
Parody is fine under copyright law.
Flickr has no problem with copyrighted images of Bush being photoshopped.
Censoring speech is oppression. So oppression does exist here.
Another poster said they are searching for images of both Bush and Obama. They can't find any positive images of Bush, in fact they found several particularly nasty ones. Conversely, they couldn't find any negative/parody images of Obama.
I haven't searched myself yet.
1 - I won't say Bush is a great President by any means. No one likes him. But you can contend that he preserved more life by going into Iraq than what was lost. Future generations also need to be considered. Any military conflict has civilian causalities. When one side is not wearing uniforms, using human shields, bombing civilians intentionally, etc. civilian causalities are going to be very high. However, millions of people are being liberated. And it wasn't like the situation was great before we got there. Towns had water shut off. Kurds were living in caves for fear of their lives.
I'm curious that no one discusses situations like Liberia, where Bush helped save lives and negotiate a peaceful surrender of a bloodthirsty dictator without firing a single bullet. Bush was a "line-in-the-sand" conservative, but you can't honestly believe that he wanted to kill innocent people. I really don't get ignorant statements like that.
2 - Obama has always been against Iraq. And he promised to end the war. He hasn't pulled out yet. So is he responsible for lives lost in Iraq? And since Obama supports conflict in Afghanistan, is he responsible for civilians killed there? At least be consistent in your logic (or lack there of).
Is that the same war that all the major Democrats voted for?
And was it the same Iraq that Clinton bombed without asking permission? Was it the same Iraq that Clinton said was pursing WMD? Was it the same Iraq that had rape/torture rooms in the police offices, shut off water to towns, and was keeping food out? Was it the same Iraq were 30 million lives were in jeopardy, and the people thanked the US for liberating them?
In reality, both parties supported going into Iraq. You can question whether or not the war was justified (despite Iraq violating over 75 security resolutions, and the UN saying if they weren't 100% complicit, then the cease-fire of 1991 was null and void, authorizing military intervention). But you can't pin the war on one person. The President can't go to war. Congress goes to war. And Congress had no problem with it.
You were one of many people to respond with this exact sentiment. I'll just respond to you.
I know that a private site has the right to moderate as they see fit. This isn't the removal of pornography, or racist material, illegal material, or any of the usual suspects that would warrant such a removal.
This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions. Does Flickr have the right? It is their site, so yes they do.
Should Flickr censor people however? No. I would hope the democratic principles that supposedly infuse this country would be reflected by US businesses to a certain extent. I hope this turns into the Streisand Effect, wherein trying to censor this image, they only bring far more attention to themselves.
Does freedom of speech mean anything anymore?
The point is that Peter kept saying these games will feature unparalleled immersion and choice. In reality, they offered far less immersion and choice than existing titles. Heck, compare Fable to Ultima VII (a game that shipped on floppy disks for crying out loud). Peter Molyneaux needs to stop promising 10 times as many features as he can deliver.
Both were hyped up as complete game-changers that would shake the industry in how immersive they were, and the amount of choice you'd have. First off, you couldn't even play a female character in Fable. He has yet to deliver on 10% of past promises. So excuse me while I withhold my excitement for Fable 3.
As long as I can get the user to visit my site and load up my malware I can spew spam, I can DDOS, etc.
Not true. If neither the user nor app have admin/root access, and you're using a secure browser (say, Chrome) then your malicious web site can't do squat. The biggest hole here right now would be that plugins aren't fully sandboxed, and Acrobat has a serious vulnerability every other week. But that is partially why I keep recommending to businesses to use Foxit as opposed to Acrobat.
Both of the two enterprise environments I've worked in have used proprietary legacy apps that "need" admin rights.
Most of the time, all the app really needs is write access to a certain folder. However, in the rare instance that the process truly does need administrator access, I make the app/process into a Windows service that starts automatically at login with System level access. The user doesn't have admin access, and other apps don't. That one app is elevated.
http://www.sonyrewards.com/en/gateway/?offerlink=srnowps3
My wifi has never dropped. And the PS3 supports video bookmarks, so any video you're watching, it should resume at that spot. But wifi is always a little iffy.
Sony is offering a deal where you can get $100 off a PS3 is you apply for the Playstation credit card. When I did it, I got $150 off. It isn't a mail in rebate or anything. They instantly reduce the price of the console by applying for, and purchasing with the new Playstation card.
If they keep the promotion with the new discounted price tomorrow, then you can have a PS3 for $199.
Unix was designed from day 1 with the notion that it is a multi-user system that needs serious integrated security. Windows was designed for a home PC with a single user. It wasn't designed with the notion that it would be on the internet, or need much in the way of security.
It isn't to say that we couldn't have forseen security concerns to design it correctly in the first place. Most *nix systems were always designed this way. Windows opted not to follow that model.
Designing the OS to be secure as opposed to chasing people attacking vulnerabilities left by design in the OS is silly?
Just certain codecs, but it is a pretty liberal list.
Don't underestimate sharks with friggen laser beams!
I agree that Social Engineering is likely the number one threat in many cases.
UAC is security theater in that people are trained to simply click allow, absolving Microsoft of responsibility.
What I mean by true security is sandboxing and accountability. Look at Chrome's design, in that a browser window (process) has limited access to data on your HDD.
Users in an enterprise environment frankly shouldn't have access to install software at all. And the more I think about it, I wonder if not only thin-client remote terminals are the way to go for the future, but temporary kiosk sessions as well.
Lastly, a really good file system from a security standpoint should not only have an access time, but log the user who accessed it at that time.
Education is the best weapon to combat social engineering (and it isn't that hard to tell people NEVER give out your password), but a well designed system certainly helps.
Perhaps I should included my title in my post. No doubt this useful given the current situation. But we wouldn't be in this position so much if we had well designed systems in place from day 1.
I do think this is interesting how we can use massive data sets to predict and map trends so much quicker. But I'd rather not have to worry about them in the first place.
But this is still treating the symptom as opposed to the core problem, which is poor security in OS and app design.
Microsoft is starting to come around on this to an extent (not running as administrator), but shouldn't we be more concerned about true security?
* 120 gig HDD.
* Built in wifi-fi.
* Streams all my media content from my computer.
* Top-notch BluRay player.
* Built in web browser
* Oh, and plays games.
I think it is a great value actually, But to each their own.
Penny Arcade covered this. PlayOn will give you Hulu and Netflix access on your PS3. You have to pay a one-time charge for PlayOn, but that is cheaper than 4 months of XBox Live.
I mention this all the time I hear the disclaimer that I'm not legally allowed to disseminate any accounting of the game.
So fans can't discuss games? Is the NFL going to sue bloggers?
Very true, but Orkut will likely have the best Wave integration here very soon.
If it was anyone other than Google, I'd be skeptical of the hype. But this isn't buzz-words. This is a (mostly) working protocol and platform to honestly really change the way we work and communicate.
Watch the video. Drink the Kool-aid.
What I'm really curious about is whether or not Facebook will fully embrace Wave, which is an open protocol. They can use it without giving Google a dime, but it still would be Facebook (partially owned by Microsoft) helping to adopt and steer a Google protocol.
Yet, if Facebook ignores Wave, I think Wave could be the "killer-app" that helps drive the next social network to tne mumber one spot.
Yes, you could write a Wave robot to send commands to your botnet.
Yes, there is an app for that.