This behavior is very logical. Equifax got away with gross negligence in the area of data security. It follows that expenditures on data security can be minimized. Updates and technical expertise costs money, market-driven approach would be to keep already paid-for systems in place and outsource maintenance of these old systems to the lowest bidder.
While trusting users to load and execute Javascript is hopelessly naive
I don't think this meant to be a working technical solution, rather a legal solution. That is, it isn't conceptually different from "Warning, explicit content. Are you are least 18 years of age?". As a web master you are not actually interested in blocking anyone from accessing your site, so it is only minimum sufficient effort to satisfy legal requirements.
People can decide what's best for them without the input from socially inept autistic losers.:)
Actually, people in general, are absolutely inept at deciding what is best for them. Look at widespread cases of people eating themselves to death, drinking themselves to death, and dying from preventable diseases when medical care is accessible.
I am perfectly content staying menial and unimportant. However, there are factors outside of my control that may change that. For example, I can say something stupid on the internet and get the ire of an online lynch mob.
Look technorati of Slashdot, 99.9999999999% of the human population gives zero fucks about online privacy
This is true, but also has to be qualified.
Most people don't care about privacy until they need it. Ask anyone who was dragged by an online mob, 100% would ask for privacy, as much as they could get.
Are you sure that isn't because you tend to view too many conspiracy videos to begin with?
I can be reasonably sure. a. I don't normally watch conspiracy videos. b. I am hard for Google to digitally fingerprint.
Here how I browse. Spin up Windows in a VM, use Chrome browser not logged in. Connect via DSL that frequently changes assigned IP addresses and truncates in major metropolitan area. At most, they have a couple day's search history coming from what looks to them like different generic PCs. If they can reliably track that, there isn't anything they can't track.
I try to avoid Google tracking as much as possible, as such when using YouTube I can easily see what effects their algorithms have on recommended videos as it is stark contrast with defaults recommendations for when they know nothing about you.
Almost universally, they suggest extreme versions of content you just searched for. For example, searching anything related to climate gets you to doomsday, the end is next year videos. Searching anything related to religion lands you on most radical versions of that content. Searching anything political lands you into directly into conspiracy videos.
Targeting microtransactions (MT) at minors should be against the law. These games are designed to be as addictive as possible and to frustrate or dupe users into overspending.
Free To Play is "free" in the same way as the first hit of crack cocaine is available for free from your friendly neighborhood crack dealer.
Are we going to get polar bear replant in grab bags? Also should we be concerned with crazy speed limits (e.g. 60 on a side streets)? Also, I don't speak French, so would I be able to book a hotel? Also, I heard they put mayo on everything and Canadian Bacon isn't real bacon.
Expecting journalists to accurately report on technology-intensive topics was empirically shown to be unreasonable.
As Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek showed with their work culminating in sensational remote hacking of a Jeep Cherokee driven by a volunteering journalist, the key issue is that hackable infotainment units are capable of impacting other systems on the car's CAN bus. See Remote Exploitation of an Unaltered Passenger Vehicle for details.
That was a known issue in 2015. There is simply no excuses to still make the same mistakes in 2018. This is not unlike releasing a protocol library that is still vulnerable to Logjam.
WiFi range is a big deal. This could be anyone in an unmarked van 30 meters (or more if they use directional antenna) in front of you on a busy highway that could potentially force your car to slam on the brakes just as you entering a corner, forcing a skid and a general life-threatening wreck.
I guess this more to do with refusal to implement Mickey Mouse laws. Many things go into public domain much earlier in Canada than in USA. Also, there are Canadian laws that cap consumer liability for pirating to $5K or so, as a result RIAA bankrupt-you lawsuits are not possible.
You state, that given such system exists, here is how to make it less evil. I don't accept the premise that such system, in any shape or form should exist.
Yes, this is likely very cruel to pigs if they ever regain consciousness. Which is not given. This will also help treat trauma and organ failure patients and will save human lives.
Transparency won't help. They will just tune the rules to oppress the people they don't like, the same way as they quite openly gerrymander and suppress voters or craft laws that disproportionately criminalize one particular group.
Exactly!
Just think of all possible damage that ideologues of all political kinds could do with such system.
"Did not go to church on Sunday -1 point" is as damaging to freedom as "Stared at a young woman's ass -1 point".
We have "demerit" points on our drivers license here in Ontario. As long as the system is transparent (you broke this law, -25 points, you paid your tax on time, +2 points, etc.) then it's not so bad.
Really? What about...
Not recycling enough -1 point Does not bike to work -1 point Ate junk food -1 point Does not exercise enough -1 point Smoked near school -1 point Watches online pornography -1 point Neglected front lawn -1 point Did not sign co-worker's birthday card -1 point Cut someone off merging into highway -1 point Likes to listen to loud music at home -1 point Some other trivial bullshit -1 point
At what point would this become oppressive tyranny by points?
Slashdot Mirror
This behavior is very logical. Equifax got away with gross negligence in the area of data security. It follows that expenditures on data security can be minimized. Updates and technical expertise costs money, market-driven approach would be to keep already paid-for systems in place and outsource maintenance of these old systems to the lowest bidder.
While trusting users to load and execute Javascript is hopelessly naive
I don't think this meant to be a working technical solution, rather a legal solution. That is, it isn't conceptually different from "Warning, explicit content. Are you are least 18 years of age?". As a web master you are not actually interested in blocking anyone from accessing your site, so it is only minimum sufficient effort to satisfy legal requirements.
People can decide what's best for them without the input from socially inept autistic losers. :)
Actually, people in general, are absolutely inept at deciding what is best for them. Look at widespread cases of people eating themselves to death, drinking themselves to death, and dying from preventable diseases when medical care is accessible.
I am perfectly content staying menial and unimportant. However, there are factors outside of my control that may change that. For example, I can say something stupid on the internet and get the ire of an online lynch mob.
Look technorati of Slashdot, 99.9999999999% of the human population gives zero fucks about online privacy
This is true, but also has to be qualified.
Most people don't care about privacy until they need it. Ask anyone who was dragged by an online mob, 100% would ask for privacy, as much as they could get.
Are you sure that isn't because you tend to view too many conspiracy videos to begin with?
I can be reasonably sure. a. I don't normally watch conspiracy videos. b. I am hard for Google to digitally fingerprint.
Here how I browse. Spin up Windows in a VM, use Chrome browser not logged in. Connect via DSL that frequently changes assigned IP addresses and truncates in major metropolitan area. At most, they have a couple day's search history coming from what looks to them like different generic PCs. If they can reliably track that, there isn't anything they can't track.
I try to avoid Google tracking as much as possible, as such when using YouTube I can easily see what effects their algorithms have on recommended videos as it is stark contrast with defaults recommendations for when they know nothing about you.
Almost universally, they suggest extreme versions of content you just searched for. For example, searching anything related to climate gets you to doomsday, the end is next year videos. Searching anything related to religion lands you on most radical versions of that content. Searching anything political lands you into directly into conspiracy videos.
Targeting microtransactions (MT) at minors should be against the law. These games are designed to be as addictive as possible and to frustrate or dupe users into overspending.
Free To Play is "free" in the same way as the first hit of crack cocaine is available for free from your friendly neighborhood crack dealer.
While this is a good feature I don't trust Google's motives. They have done this to drive more business toward AdWords, that would never get blocked.
This paraphrase deliberately attempts to mislead the reader into thinking he is anti-woman and anti-minority.
msmash is notorious clickbaiter, so such FUD is to be expected.
Do you know if I need to get beaver fever vaccinations before I travel to Canada?
Why does everyone tell me to try Putin while I am in Canada? I know they are almost communists there, but what does Putin have to do with anything?
Are we going to get polar bear replant in grab bags? Also should we be concerned with crazy speed limits (e.g. 60 on a side streets)? Also, I don't speak French, so would I be able to book a hotel? Also, I heard they put mayo on everything and Canadian Bacon isn't real bacon.
I think they should get with the State Department and get him extradited like any other criminal.
Sure, just right after Iran finished with him on blasphemy charges.
I understand that Mark is least deserving person, but unless everyone is protected by our laws, no one is.
Expecting journalists to accurately report on technology-intensive topics was empirically shown to be unreasonable.
As Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek showed with their work culminating in sensational remote hacking of a Jeep Cherokee driven by a volunteering journalist, the key issue is that hackable infotainment units are capable of impacting other systems on the car's CAN bus. See Remote Exploitation of an Unaltered Passenger Vehicle for details.
That was a known issue in 2015. There is simply no excuses to still make the same mistakes in 2018. This is not unlike releasing a protocol library that is still vulnerable to Logjam.
WiFi range is a big deal. This could be anyone in an unmarked van 30 meters (or more if they use directional antenna) in front of you on a busy highway that could potentially force your car to slam on the brakes just as you entering a corner, forcing a skid and a general life-threatening wreck.
Jack D. Ripper was right! They are trying to impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
I guess this more to do with refusal to implement Mickey Mouse laws. Many things go into public domain much earlier in Canada than in USA. Also, there are Canadian laws that cap consumer liability for pirating to $5K or so, as a result RIAA bankrupt-you lawsuits are not possible.
Is "sort things out" an euphemism for trying to patch gaping security holes?
You state, that given such system exists, here is how to make it less evil. I don't accept the premise that such system, in any shape or form should exist.
Sestan says the organs produce a flat brain wave equivalent to a comatose state
So no, pig brains were not feeling. They were effectively shut down.
Yes, this is likely very cruel to pigs if they ever regain consciousness. Which is not given. This will also help treat trauma and organ failure patients and will save human lives.
Transparency won't help. They will just tune the rules to oppress the people they don't like, the same way as they quite openly gerrymander and suppress voters or craft laws that disproportionately criminalize one particular group.
Exactly!
Just think of all possible damage that ideologues of all political kinds could do with such system.
"Did not go to church on Sunday -1 point" is as damaging to freedom as "Stared at a young woman's ass -1 point".
We have "demerit" points on our drivers license here in Ontario. As long as the system is transparent (you broke this law, -25 points, you paid your tax on time, +2 points, etc.) then it's not so bad.
Really? What about...
Not recycling enough -1 point
Does not bike to work -1 point
Ate junk food -1 point
Does not exercise enough -1 point
Smoked near school -1 point
Watches online pornography -1 point
Neglected front lawn -1 point
Did not sign co-worker's birthday card -1 point
Cut someone off merging into highway -1 point
Likes to listen to loud music at home -1 point
Some other trivial bullshit -1 point
At what point would this become oppressive tyranny by points?
What is this, I don't even...