Even the " prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals" condition is a fluff, since a foreign nation can simply pay a US citizen to get the data.
The point is that any US citizen who/has/ that information is not permitted to share it. I'm sure some do and don't get caught at it - but that doesn't mean that they're not in violation of both their contractual obligations and applicable laws.
I have four different 3.5 installations and none of them are doing this. I'm not usually a "but it's working fine for me" kinda guy, but don't you think something like this would have been reported as a showstopper bug for 3.5? (Even as I typed this I background loaded your comment, and had no issues...) What plugins and add-ons are you running? Could they have an effect? If you're certain that there's no other possible cause, hopefully you've filed a bug report?
Not quite that simple. Do you eat lunch? Do you need a full hour in which to do it? I have found that eating my lunch in 15 minutes and walking outside for 45 has been a great help in losing weight. Even 15 minutes of walking is better than 0. At work, take the stairs and not the elevator. Get up, pace around. You'll find that this also clears your head and makes you more effective at your job. Might also help alleviate some of those persistent aches and pains you're bound to have with that much time immobile.
There are a lot of little things you can do that add up -- without it becoming a choice between "sleep" and "get fat".
Re:It is what you want it to be.
on
The Twitter Book
·
· Score: 1
I don't hate Twitter because it is popular; I hate it because of the overexposure. Twitter is just a service; it is what you want it to be.
Hate? Really? You find the oddest things to waste such energy on-- after all, it is just a service.
Re:And what could be more pointless than Twitter?
on
The Twitter Book
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I was firmly in the "pointless waste of time" camp; but the more I see, the more I am unsure. People post.. erm.. 'tweet' what they're thnking at the moment. This means we can dip into the collective stream of consciousness of hundreds of thousands of people at any give moment. There's a certain value to that - no matter how pointless the individual thoughts are. Fascinating for someone who likes to study the human animal.
ure, you may cut down on these malicious code problems by switch to a non-Windows platform (the smaller the market share the logically fewer malware coders for that platform), but you also have to take into account the downside of using software et al. that isn't innately and intrinsically compatible with what 90%+ of people are running.
You're missing the point. In the TCO "studies", these are all taken into account, and gleefully highlighted -- while the additional costs associated with viruses (including expensive subscriptions to enterprise antivirus solutions) are not taken into account at all. Just because this malware is targeted only at the most popular platform does not in any way negate its existence. If *nix became the most popular platform and started seeing the same issues, then that cost would ALSO have to be accounted for but -- but right now, it's not there.
As for these people cleaning up Conficker...talk about a bad example! The vulnerability that Conficker takes advantage of has been patched for what...8 months now?...-snip-
This doesn't change the fact that the cost is very real -- and that large organizations often cannot afford to immediately slap down the latest patch from MS without testing that can often extend for months beyond that patches release. It's clear to me that you're thinking of mom-n-pop shops where it's a simple matter to apply a hotfix. In the real world, where you have tens of thousands of desktops, you MUST be sure that any update, from any vendor, will not impact you in a major way. This means huge regression suites and - above all- time.
As for the rest - sorry, my eyes glaze over when you start insulting as a means of making your point. It's not worth replying to.
The problem is that if they're polite and fix that, then they open themselves up to that other nastiness - "Oh, no, I crashed and my settings are gone!" which you might recall from ext4 discussions a few months ago here.
Not sure why this is modded "troll"; but that aside, it seems they've jumped the gun and posted the current RC as the final version on softpedia. No idea why they would have done so.
If 3.0.11fixes a critical security vulnerability (which is the primary reason these updates go out, if not the only reason) I would think you'd be willing to accept a temporarily broken streetview for an uncompromised browser?
That aside, the default option of "on" makes the most sense (since most people won't bother checking or updating on their own), but you can certainly disable updates if you want to.
Freedom of speech is not a "perceived right", it's a constitutionally guaranteed one.
Again, how does this translate into you having a right to knowledge at the cost of someone else's life? Answer: It doesn't. Full stop.
And I have been consistent about valuing my rights more than my safety.
Me too. BUt I do not, and will not, value my rights more than your safety. And that's the situation we're talking about here.
Living in a free society has serious risks in that other people can harm you and me and even get away with it fairly easily. If you can't live with that, you can't live in a democracy. I still prefer those risks to living in a totalitarian state.
Which doesn't give them the "right" to harm you in the process of exercising their own rights. The fact that they can do so does mean it's a constitutionally guaranteed right for them to do so.
As far as "perceived" rights: the constitution is a piece of paper. This social contract guarantees us some incredible and valuable freedoms, but this does not make those freedoms integral to being a living human - just ask someone in Bosnia, Somalia, et al what rights they have by birth. Humans have no inherent "right" to anything.
Aside from all this, perhaps you can explain how it is that if private publications (Times, Wikipedia) do not publish information it infringes your first amendment rights? Again, nowhere in the 1st is the "right to know". (And yes, Wikipedia is private - particularly in the sense that it is not government owned and operated. This means that they have ultimate control over what they allow to be published. )
The test is whether the speech constitutes a "clear and present danger". This doesn't pass that test.
Translation: you don't think it does because you don't care if the reporter gets killed? Maybe that's not what you mean, but I'm not seeing any other way to interpret this. By what definition was this/not/ clear and present danger?
The newspapers made the argument that reporting on the kidnapping would have increased the value of this hostage, but that argument can be made in many kidnapping situations. Since newspapers don't refrain from reporting on such other kidnappings, they have already decided that doing so does not constitute a "clear and present danger" in general, and therefore it doesn't constitute one here.
Actually, FTA: "Times executives believed that publicity would raise Mr. Rohdeâ(TM)s value to his captors as a bargaining chip and reduce his chance of survival."
Merely reporting news that causes someone harm is something newspapers do every day anyway.
There's a difference between financial harm and life-threatening.
First several are about escapes from Taliban after the fact. Several more are about the Taliban freeing captives. Only one (in the first page) is a case where captives were still being held - and even at that, they are reporting on the actions of another party pleading for their freedom.
... scrolling further through the list, I two cases, several years apart. In those, there was a publicly broadcast video originating from the Taliban; but that notwithstanding, do you think those are the really the only times that a non-reporter has been kidnapped?
Seems to me that they've done a fairly good job of not reporting in cases when doing so would increase the danger to those kidnapped.
Yes, when the choice comes down to democracy vs safety, I choose democracy.
It's easy to choose between someone else's safety and your perceived rights within a democracy. (NOte that I still don't see how you have a "right" to this information; in the same way you don't have a "right" to information about troop movements.)
But here, the problem is a double standard: newspapers keeping information about a kidnapped reporter quiet, while reporting on many other hostages.
Well, that's the thing - as I've mentioned elsewhere, I've been looking for cases where the newspaper is reporting on other hostages and the act of reporting on them places them in further danger, and I am coming up blank. As a result, I'm not seeing the double standard.
Indeed. A case study like this - if confirmed in other studies - seems to indicate that maybe instead of these people being "slightly overweight", the metric used to determine "overweight" is flawed.
But do they? How many cases can you find where they have reported on a kidnap victim, knowing that the act of doing so drastically increases the risk of that victim dying? I've been looking, and I really haven't been able to find any so far (still looking...)
[Citation Needed]. Please, find examples where they blab about a kidnapping of a non-reporter, when doing so would cost the life of the victim. You may find one or two - but not nearly as many as occur every year. I know the movies like to portray reporters as uniformly unethical creatures who will sell their mothers for a story and career advancement, damn the consequences. But the realitiy is that you'll be hard pressed to find those examples I asked for.
How many kidnapping stories do you hear about every day, when the victim is still unaccounted for? Not many. (Hint: there are an estimated 15-20,000 kidnappings a year in the US, if not more. A fraction of that get reported before they are either resolved, or there are no other hopes of recovery.)
Narrow that further by adding the criteria that the kidnapper is actively seeking media attention. Even fewer.
Now let's narrow it even further. How about in cases where you know the kidnapper does not want ANY ransom, but instead only wants news coverage before killing someone?
There's no double standard here, only trying to prevent a senseless death. Kind of like that godawful movie where the dude only kills people when he gets a certain number of viewers on his web site. In a situation where you/know/ that attention will provoke a death, why would you do anything less than keep it quiet as long as possible ?
Why should it be? GP is absolutely right. In NONE of those cases should it receive publicity - if publicity is what the kidnappers want. Our supposed "right to know" ends when it can cost someone else their life in exchange - particularly if that exchange is not one that the victim has agreed to.
If the article is accurate - and all traffic goes through a single chokepoint - wouldn't that mean that even connections to anonymizing proxies are also going through that chokepoint, and thus leading back to their users before those users are safely proxied?
Slashdot Mirror
until it's the kind that doesn't turn us on. Then it's filth and should be banned.
Or quite possibly, until it's the kind that turns prosecutors on more than they are comfortable admitting...
Even the " prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals" condition is a fluff, since a foreign nation can simply pay a US citizen to get the data.
The point is that any US citizen who /has/ that information is not permitted to share it. I'm sure some do and don't get caught at it - but that doesn't mean that they're not in violation of both their contractual obligations and applicable laws.
... and doubtless they're so proud of being real men that they proclaim this openly, right anonymous coward?
I have four different 3.5 installations and none of them are doing this. I'm not usually a "but it's working fine for me" kinda guy, but don't you think something like this would have been reported as a showstopper bug for 3.5? (Even as I typed this I background loaded your comment, and had no issues...) What plugins and add-ons are you running? Could they have an effect? If you're certain that there's no other possible cause, hopefully you've filed a bug report?
There are a lot of little things you can do that add up -- without it becoming a choice between "sleep" and "get fat".
I don't hate Twitter because it is popular; I hate it because of the overexposure. Twitter is just a service; it is what you want it to be.
Hate? Really? You find the oddest things to waste such energy on-- after all, it is just a service.
I was firmly in the "pointless waste of time" camp; but the more I see, the more I am unsure. People post .. erm.. 'tweet' what they're thnking at the moment. This means we can dip into the collective stream of consciousness of hundreds of thousands of people at any give moment. There's a certain value to that - no matter how pointless the individual thoughts are. Fascinating for someone who likes to study the human animal.
You know that posting anonymously doesn't undo moderation, right?
I am extremely suspicious of "just trust us" accounting, especially in cases of disease and tainted animal products.
Ulch! That meat was tainted!
well yeah, but i dont do anything illegal so i am not attracting the attention of the authorities
Damn dude, you walked right into that one.
ure, you may cut down on these malicious code problems by switch to a non-Windows platform (the smaller the market share the logically fewer malware coders for that platform), but you also have to take into account the downside of using software et al. that isn't innately and intrinsically compatible with what 90%+ of people are running.
You're missing the point. In the TCO "studies", these are all taken into account, and gleefully highlighted -- while the additional costs associated with viruses (including expensive subscriptions to enterprise antivirus solutions) are not taken into account at all. Just because this malware is targeted only at the most popular platform does not in any way negate its existence. If *nix became the most popular platform and started seeing the same issues, then that cost would ALSO have to be accounted for but -- but right now, it's not there.
As for these people cleaning up Conficker...talk about a bad example! The vulnerability that Conficker takes advantage of has been patched for what...8 months now?...-snip-
This doesn't change the fact that the cost is very real -- and that large organizations often cannot afford to immediately slap down the latest patch from MS without testing that can often extend for months beyond that patches release. It's clear to me that you're thinking of mom-n-pop shops where it's a simple matter to apply a hotfix. In the real world, where you have tens of thousands of desktops, you MUST be sure that any update, from any vendor, will not impact you in a major way. This means huge regression suites and - above all- time.
As for the rest - sorry, my eyes glaze over when you start insulting as a means of making your point. It's not worth replying to.
The problem is that if they're polite and fix that, then they open themselves up to that other nastiness - "Oh, no, I crashed and my settings are gone!" which you might recall from ext4 discussions a few months ago here.
Not sure why this is modded "troll"; but that aside, it seems they've jumped the gun and posted the current RC as the final version on softpedia. No idea why they would have done so.
That aside, the default option of "on" makes the most sense (since most people won't bother checking or updating on their own), but you can certainly disable updates if you want to.
Freedom of speech is not a "perceived right", it's a constitutionally guaranteed one.
Again, how does this translate into you having a right to knowledge at the cost of someone else's life? Answer: It doesn't. Full stop.
And I have been consistent about valuing my rights more than my safety.
Me too. BUt I do not, and will not, value my rights more than your safety. And that's the situation we're talking about here.
Living in a free society has serious risks in that other people can harm you and me and even get away with it fairly easily. If you can't live with that, you can't live in a democracy. I still prefer those risks to living in a totalitarian state.
Which doesn't give them the "right" to harm you in the process of exercising their own rights. The fact that they can do so does mean it's a constitutionally guaranteed right for them to do so.
As far as "perceived" rights: the constitution is a piece of paper. This social contract guarantees us some incredible and valuable freedoms, but this does not make those freedoms integral to being a living human - just ask someone in Bosnia, Somalia, et al what rights they have by birth. Humans have no inherent "right" to anything.
Aside from all this, perhaps you can explain how it is that if private publications (Times, Wikipedia) do not publish information it infringes your first amendment rights? Again, nowhere in the 1st is the "right to know". (And yes, Wikipedia is private - particularly in the sense that it is not government owned and operated. This means that they have ultimate control over what they allow to be published. )
The test is whether the speech constitutes a "clear and present danger". This doesn't pass that test.
Translation: you don't think it does because you don't care if the reporter gets killed? Maybe that's not what you mean, but I'm not seeing any other way to interpret this. By what definition was this /not/ clear and present danger?
The newspapers made the argument that reporting on the kidnapping would have increased the value of this hostage, but that argument can be made in many kidnapping situations. Since newspapers don't refrain from reporting on such other kidnappings, they have already decided that doing so does not constitute a "clear and present danger" in general, and therefore it doesn't constitute one here.
Actually, FTA: "Times executives believed that publicity would raise Mr. Rohdeâ(TM)s value to his captors as a bargaining chip and reduce his chance of survival."
Merely reporting news that causes someone harm is something newspapers do every day anyway.
There's a difference between financial harm and life-threatening.
Seems to me that they've done a fairly good job of not reporting in cases when doing so would increase the danger to those kidnapped.
Yes, when the choice comes down to democracy vs safety, I choose democracy.
It's easy to choose between someone else's safety and your perceived rights within a democracy. (NOte that I still don't see how you have a "right" to this information; in the same way you don't have a "right" to information about troop movements.)
But here, the problem is a double standard: newspapers keeping information about a kidnapped reporter quiet, while reporting on many other hostages.
Well, that's the thing - as I've mentioned elsewhere, I've been looking for cases where the newspaper is reporting on other hostages and the act of reporting on them places them in further danger, and I am coming up blank. As a result, I'm not seeing the double standard.
Indeed. A case study like this - if confirmed in other studies - seems to indicate that maybe instead of these people being "slightly overweight", the metric used to determine "overweight" is flawed.
But do they? How many cases can you find where they have reported on a kidnap victim, knowing that the act of doing so drastically increases the risk of that victim dying? I've been looking, and I really haven't been able to find any so far (still looking...)
We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship, whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.
Yes! And to hell with whoever gets hurt or killed in the process - we must have our Information!
[Citation Needed]. Please, find examples where they blab about a kidnapping of a non-reporter, when doing so would cost the life of the victim. You may find one or two - but not nearly as many as occur every year. I know the movies like to portray reporters as uniformly unethical creatures who will sell their mothers for a story and career advancement, damn the consequences. But the realitiy is that you'll be hard pressed to find those examples I asked for.
Narrow that further by adding the criteria that the kidnapper is actively seeking media attention. Even fewer.
Now let's narrow it even further. How about in cases where you know the kidnapper does not want ANY ransom, but instead only wants news coverage before killing someone?
There's no double standard here, only trying to prevent a senseless death. Kind of like that godawful movie where the dude only kills people when he gets a certain number of viewers on his web site. In a situation where you /know/ that attention will provoke a death, why would you do anything less than keep it quiet as long as possible ?
Why should it be? GP is absolutely right. In NONE of those cases should it receive publicity - if publicity is what the kidnappers want. Our supposed "right to know" ends when it can cost someone else their life in exchange - particularly if that exchange is not one that the victim has agreed to.
If the article is accurate - and all traffic goes through a single chokepoint - wouldn't that mean that even connections to anonymizing proxies are also going through that chokepoint, and thus leading back to their users before those users are safely proxied?
Arg. Meant to fix the topic before submitting. Can't even say I didn't preview as an excuse...