KeePass is simply a spec and standard for a password vault, with many many software implementations. A lot of those implementations support synching your wallet to either public or private clouds.
The way I use KeePass is I keep my wallet synched to my Google Drive account, which is in turn of course protected by 2FA.
I can then load said wallet on Android, IOS, in my browser, and via local apps in OSX and Windows, because all of these platforms have KeePass apps that support Google Drive sync. Don't like Google? You can also use DropBox, Box, or use your own private server if you want.... this is what is great about KeePass, do what you want.
In the very, very unlikely scenario that Google's security is compromised (they are one of the few companies on the planet I somewhat implicitly trust WRT security), then I can still be assured in the security of my wallet which is cryptographically proven and audited.
I feel a lot safer with this then relying on a company like KeePass which has nowhere near the resources Google has.
I think you give far, far too much credit to the average population.
Put a warning dialogue / pop up / message in front of any user. 99.9% of them will "OK" or "Dismiss" or "Close" it without even reading it, regardless of the supposed consequence. People don't care. We have trained users for decades to not care about warnings by over-warning them and over-legalizing them. Warnings are meaningless now, and it is extremely difficult to get users engaged enough to care.
This is a known problem in software development and it's not Facebook's fault.
"Just imagine if Facebook instead had a page "see all the places we shared your data over the last 30 days" and each item had a handy tick box beside it "never do this again"
Except that Google already has EXACTLY this, at a freindly URL (https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity) , and has had it FOR YEARS AND YEARS, long before GDPR was even a word. Google also nags you to visit it, and review it, once a month, on their search page.
Yet if you ask the average person, I guarantee they will have never visited it, not even once. In fact people often go "wow!" when you show it to them.... followed by me going "really??? How could you have ignored all those messages..."
The average person simply doesn't know care - either about the warning enough to dive into it, or about the data in the first place -some combination of the two.
This is what I mean. It is very hard for me as a software developer to imagine what more could Google and Facebook be doing to get "consent". With Android, you can't even activate the damn phone without consenting - its right there in your face along with everything the data is used for. No one cares, no one reads it. Everyone just leaves it enabled.
Its hard for me to imagine how Facebook could inform people any more robustly than they already do.
They have gone to the extreme lengths that they put a giant ad on your app, that you MUST dismiss, at least once a month asking people to go review their privacy settings.
Of course, everyone just dismisses it.
Is it possible that the majority of people simply do not care as much as Slashdot thinks they should?
The fart sprayis what makes you want to chuck it. That stuff is strong. It's like a skunk. You'd just want it out of there and there's no way you'd try to inflict more damage and make it smell worse.
The suggestion that Huawei is somehow more likely to have this happen to them than Cisco, Qualcomm, or other US-based telecommunication companies, is farcical.
So surely this is a good thing? If everyone uses the same renderer, the web will look much more consistent right? Yes, that's true. But consistency and standards compliance are not the same thing. In the age of IE6, the web was very consistent, as every website was written for the quirks in Trident, but now we're going to see an era where websites are designed for Chrome, because every browser uses the Blink/webkit rendering engine.
Web standards are dead. If you think Firefox and Chrome follow web standards (W3C), you have been living under a rock for the past 5 years. The WHATWG group (made of Firefox, Google, and Microsoft) essentially told W3C to shove their standards where the sun don't shine, and went off and formed their own consortium. Since then, they have written their own standards, and implemented them as they saw fit... and the web has actually benefited greatly from it, because standards should be set by the people who build the tools in the first place.
You're assuming the proportions of wage earners in that employee base have been constant, when they haven't.
Originally, most of Amazon's employees were high-paid technical folks. The incredible majority of Amazon employees today are warehouse workers who earn relatively low wages. Don't get me wrong, there are still a lot of highly-paid technical folks working at Amazon, but it is probably 10,000 out of the total.
With Spotify, I pay $10 a month and get ad-free music on Spotify.
With Google, for the same price, I get ad-free music on Google Play, ad-free music on YouTube music, ad-free YouTube videos on YouTube Premium, original series and movies on YouTube Premium, and additional features on the YouTube app on my phone.
The price for the ride is irrelevant because it is expensed to the company. I don't use Uber to save me money, I use it because it works, its reliable, and its an app I know and understand and works in most major cities worldwide. I do not have the time or patience to install local taxii ride-hailing apps for every city I visit. Uber works everywhere.
Do not underestimate how many of "me" there are. Business users - who really do not care much about the price - are a very substantial piece of Uber's pie.
The idea that it takes any kind of technical savvy to download an app like Signal and install it on a phone to pass encrypted messages is ridiculous. People can figure it out when they want to pirate movies, criminals can figure it out as well.
Maybe the problem is this article is looking at "Blockchain vendors" (aka tiny startups). One of the biggest problems in having a successful blockchain use case is it requires PARTNERSHIP with many external companies, who are usually competitors. This is not something easily brokered by startups.
IBM Food Trust (IBM / Walmart / Dole / Kroger / Carrefour ) Expands Blockchain Network to Foster a Safer, More Transparent and Efficient Global Food System
The rules have to be there for liability reasons in the event of an accident so someone can be held responsible.
This is really why China has to have these systems, because they don't have the extremely strong and thousand-year old system of common law that the West does.
In the West, if you're jaywalking and get hit by a car, the driver is not at fault unless there is some extenuating circumstance. If on the other hand you are crossing on a green or at a marked intersection, the driver will be at fault. The person who is at fault can be subject to either civil or criminal penalties.
None of this is relevant because very shortly after autonomous cars become mainstream, personal car ownership is going to fall off a cliff faster than you can say "autonomous". I fully expect that my child will never personally own a vehicle.
Considering that you can't even bring a credit score from Canada into the US without involving a special cross-border process like American Express Global Transfer or a cross-border bank, you are correct.
My spidey sense is telling me DHS has no idea what they're talking about here. Non-US citizens do not have credit scores with US credit agencies, ever.
It's not that your product will be trashed, usually it will just languish in obscurity for a long time and won't have the "hyper growth" venture backers demand. Don't want to deal with it? Then don't get venture backers, and try to grow organically.
It is a longer, more difficult path for sure - but it is the path ALMOST EVERY BUSINESS used to have to take before the web existed because television commercials were the only way to reach a national audience, and they were, as a result, very expensive and pretty much restricted only to major established brands.
Without national exposure, you will have to - guess what - grow organically, by doing legwork in one region, becoming a success, moving to other regions based on that success, etc.
This is how business USED to work. But that pace of growth is too slow for modern venture companies who want a 10x improvement on their investment within 5 years.
This isn't even about Amazon or Target or shops like this. This ruling is about SHOPPING AGGREGATORS.
There are a bunch of sketchy shopping aggregators sites. Their entire business model is to trick you into visiting them and searching via their site, instead of the actual retailer, so that they can get referral commissions.
Google is gradually putting these sketchy sites out of business by cutting them out of the picture, and this is a GOOD THING FOR CONSUMERS. The world will be a better place if they all die.
The EU ruling found in favour of these sketchy sites and said that if you go into Google and type "price of Pixel 3" that Google can't just give you the price and a bunch of links of places to buy it - they also have to show you links to these sketchy sites so they can collect their referral money.
I think you're misunderstanding Sergei & Larry here.
It is the EU ruling that is acting in favour of advertisers. Google Shopping is the one acting more on the consumer side.
Google Shopping shows you products that match exactly what you are looking for and lets you buy them from whoever you want with the lowest price - IE, best interest of the consumer.
The EU ruling says that Google can not act in best interest of consumers, and must instead allow sub-optimal results to also be returned from other sketchy shopping aggregators, to allow these sub-par sketchy companies into the results.
Google wanted to at least charge companies for this privilege to offer these sub-par results, these companies are now complaining they want this for free as well.
Twilio makes SaaS software that lets you interact with voice, video, and text via APIs. They make and power all kinds of stuff from chatbots to voice menus. I am sure some companies use their technology for nefarious reasons as well, but Twilio is not the one sending the messages, the company is.
Calling Twilio a "mass-texting company" is like calling Paderno a "stabbing device company".
I love how people in the/. echo chamber post articles like this, seemingly blissfully unaware that Facebook's revenue in the most recent quarter (yes, the one with all the negative coverage) showed double-digit growth, just like every quarter has since they became public.
Unless some external factor occurs like anti-trust causing a breakup, Facebook is going to be the next trillion dollar company, and will be so within the next 12-18 months.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would Tidal inflate streaming numbers so they could pay out MORE royalties? That makes no sense at all.
KeePass is simply a spec and standard for a password vault, with many many software implementations. A lot of those implementations support synching your wallet to either public or private clouds.
The way I use KeePass is I keep my wallet synched to my Google Drive account, which is in turn of course protected by 2FA.
I can then load said wallet on Android, IOS, in my browser, and via local apps in OSX and Windows, because all of these platforms have KeePass apps that support Google Drive sync. Don't like Google? You can also use DropBox, Box, or use your own private server if you want.... this is what is great about KeePass, do what you want.
In the very, very unlikely scenario that Google's security is compromised (they are one of the few companies on the planet I somewhat implicitly trust WRT security), then I can still be assured in the security of my wallet which is cryptographically proven and audited.
I feel a lot safer with this then relying on a company like KeePass which has nowhere near the resources Google has.
Thats exactly my point.
The majority of the world HAS made an informed decision to not care.
Yet Slashdot and high-and-mighty lawmakers continue to complain.
I think you give far, far too much credit to the average population.
Put a warning dialogue / pop up / message in front of any user. 99.9% of them will "OK" or "Dismiss" or "Close" it without even reading it, regardless of the supposed consequence. People don't care. We have trained users for decades to not care about warnings by over-warning them and over-legalizing them. Warnings are meaningless now, and it is extremely difficult to get users engaged enough to care.
This is a known problem in software development and it's not Facebook's fault.
"Just imagine if Facebook instead had a page "see all the places we shared your data over the last 30 days" and each item had a handy tick box beside it "never do this again"
Except that Google already has EXACTLY this, at a freindly URL (https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity) , and has had it FOR YEARS AND YEARS, long before GDPR was even a word. Google also nags you to visit it, and review it, once a month, on their search page.
Yet if you ask the average person, I guarantee they will have never visited it, not even once. In fact people often go "wow!" when you show it to them.... followed by me going "really??? How could you have ignored all those messages..."
The average person simply doesn't know care - either about the warning enough to dive into it, or about the data in the first place -some combination of the two.
This is what I mean. It is very hard for me as a software developer to imagine what more could Google and Facebook be doing to get "consent". With Android, you can't even activate the damn phone without consenting - its right there in your face along with everything the data is used for. No one cares, no one reads it. Everyone just leaves it enabled.
Its hard for me to imagine how Facebook could inform people any more robustly than they already do.
They have gone to the extreme lengths that they put a giant ad on your app, that you MUST dismiss, at least once a month asking people to go review their privacy settings.
Of course, everyone just dismisses it.
Is it possible that the majority of people simply do not care as much as Slashdot thinks they should?
Black Mirror covers this exact scenario in Be Right Back. Did this guy steal the idea from there?
The fart sprayis what makes you want to chuck it. That stuff is strong. It's like a skunk. You'd just want it out of there and there's no way you'd try to inflict more damage and make it smell worse.
The suggestion that Huawei is somehow more likely to have this happen to them than Cisco, Qualcomm, or other US-based telecommunication companies, is farcical.
So surely this is a good thing? If everyone uses the same renderer, the web will look much more consistent right? Yes, that's true. But consistency and standards compliance are not the same thing. In the age of IE6, the web was very consistent, as every website was written for the quirks in Trident, but now we're going to see an era where websites are designed for Chrome, because every browser uses the Blink/webkit rendering engine.
Web standards are dead. If you think Firefox and Chrome follow web standards (W3C), you have been living under a rock for the past 5 years. The WHATWG group (made of Firefox, Google, and Microsoft) essentially told W3C to shove their standards where the sun don't shine, and went off and formed their own consortium. Since then, they have written their own standards, and implemented them as they saw fit... and the web has actually benefited greatly from it, because standards should be set by the people who build the tools in the first place.
This has been very widely known and reported for years and years and years.
Hell I think Gone in 60 Seconds showed this back 15 years ago???
You're assuming the proportions of wage earners in that employee base have been constant, when they haven't.
Originally, most of Amazon's employees were high-paid technical folks. The incredible majority of Amazon employees today are warehouse workers who earn relatively low wages. Don't get me wrong, there are still a lot of highly-paid technical folks working at Amazon, but it is probably 10,000 out of the total.
With Spotify, I pay $10 a month and get ad-free music on Spotify.
With Google, for the same price, I get ad-free music on Google Play, ad-free music on YouTube music, ad-free YouTube videos on YouTube Premium, original series and movies on YouTube Premium, and additional features on the YouTube app on my phone.
I use Uber every time I travel for business.
The price for the ride is irrelevant because it is expensed to the company. I don't use Uber to save me money, I use it because it works, its reliable, and its an app I know and understand and works in most major cities worldwide. I do not have the time or patience to install local taxii ride-hailing apps for every city I visit. Uber works everywhere.
Do not underestimate how many of "me" there are. Business users - who really do not care much about the price - are a very substantial piece of Uber's pie.
The idea that it takes any kind of technical savvy to download an app like Signal and install it on a phone to pass encrypted messages is ridiculous. People can figure it out when they want to pirate movies, criminals can figure it out as well.
Maybe the problem is this article is looking at "Blockchain vendors" (aka tiny startups). One of the biggest problems in having a successful blockchain use case is it requires PARTNERSHIP with many external companies, who are usually competitors. This is not something easily brokered by startups.
IBM Food Trust (IBM / Walmart / Dole / Kroger / Carrefour ) Expands Blockchain Network to Foster a Safer, More Transparent and Efficient Global Food System
https://newsroom.ibm.com/2018-...
--
Maersk and IBM Introduce TradeLens Blockchain Shipping Solution
https://newsroom.ibm.com/2018-...
The rules have to be there for liability reasons in the event of an accident so someone can be held responsible.
This is really why China has to have these systems, because they don't have the extremely strong and thousand-year old system of common law that the West does.
In the West, if you're jaywalking and get hit by a car, the driver is not at fault unless there is some extenuating circumstance. If on the other hand you are crossing on a green or at a marked intersection, the driver will be at fault. The person who is at fault can be subject to either civil or criminal penalties.
None of this is relevant because very shortly after autonomous cars become mainstream, personal car ownership is going to fall off a cliff faster than you can say "autonomous". I fully expect that my child will never personally own a vehicle.
https://www.bbc.com/news/busin...
Considering that you can't even bring a credit score from Canada into the US without involving a special cross-border process like American Express Global Transfer or a cross-border bank, you are correct.
My spidey sense is telling me DHS has no idea what they're talking about here. Non-US citizens do not have credit scores with US credit agencies, ever.
It's not that your product will be trashed, usually it will just languish in obscurity for a long time and won't have the "hyper growth" venture backers demand. Don't want to deal with it? Then don't get venture backers, and try to grow organically.
It is a longer, more difficult path for sure - but it is the path ALMOST EVERY BUSINESS used to have to take before the web existed because television commercials were the only way to reach a national audience, and they were, as a result, very expensive and pretty much restricted only to major established brands.
Without national exposure, you will have to - guess what - grow organically, by doing legwork in one region, becoming a success, moving to other regions based on that success, etc.
This is how business USED to work. But that pace of growth is too slow for modern venture companies who want a 10x improvement on their investment within 5 years.
+1000.
If I had mod points, you'd get them.
What is the value to the consumer of these shopping aggregation sites?
Why would I, as someone searching for product, EVER WANT TO BE SENT TO THEM?
These sites are a scourge on the internet and the sooner they all die, the better.
This isn't even about Amazon or Target or shops like this. This ruling is about SHOPPING AGGREGATORS.
There are a bunch of sketchy shopping aggregators sites. Their entire business model is to trick you into visiting them and searching via their site, instead of the actual retailer, so that they can get referral commissions.
Google is gradually putting these sketchy sites out of business by cutting them out of the picture, and this is a GOOD THING FOR CONSUMERS. The world will be a better place if they all die.
The EU ruling found in favour of these sketchy sites and said that if you go into Google and type "price of Pixel 3" that Google can't just give you the price and a bunch of links of places to buy it - they also have to show you links to these sketchy sites so they can collect their referral money.
I think you're misunderstanding Sergei & Larry here.
It is the EU ruling that is acting in favour of advertisers. Google Shopping is the one acting more on the consumer side.
Google Shopping shows you products that match exactly what you are looking for and lets you buy them from whoever you want with the lowest price - IE, best interest of the consumer.
The EU ruling says that Google can not act in best interest of consumers, and must instead allow sub-optimal results to also be returned from other sketchy shopping aggregators, to allow these sub-par sketchy companies into the results.
Google wanted to at least charge companies for this privilege to offer these sub-par results, these companies are now complaining they want this for free as well.
Twilio makes SaaS software that lets you interact with voice, video, and text via APIs. They make and power all kinds of stuff from chatbots to voice menus. I am sure some companies use their technology for nefarious reasons as well, but Twilio is not the one sending the messages, the company is.
Calling Twilio a "mass-texting company" is like calling Paderno a "stabbing device company".
I love how people in the /. echo chamber post articles like this, seemingly blissfully unaware that Facebook's revenue in the most recent quarter (yes, the one with all the negative coverage) showed double-digit growth, just like every quarter has since they became public.
Unless some external factor occurs like anti-trust causing a breakup, Facebook is going to be the next trillion dollar company, and will be so within the next 12-18 months.