Every once in a while some security tries restricting more system calls, but the functionality it strips breaks so many applications and annoys so many developers (and thus users who are no longer able to run things that used to work) that the attempt is backed off from.
sandboxing always involves a trade off. Apps do not have full root capabilities, but a compromised app can still do damage within its range, which unfortunately is the range of what people want apps to be doing.
I am not sure I would really call this a failure in its design, but an inherent security issue that is present on every OS ever built: any application that allows any type of data input (which a framework is) can potentially have problems with how it loads the data.
In this case not really. All he is describing is the first in a chain of requirements, the next one being finding a signed application that can be exploited. Probably doable, but a different (and somewhat duller) problem.
*shrug* no more 'threat' than we were. Two ruling classes hyping up their populations about how doomed we all are if we do not destroy the other, and anyone who gets in between us get either downplayed or hyped depending on who's side any particular proxy is.
The 'overthrow' part is one of the best examples of propaganda during the cold war. People daring to engage in democracy provided a great scare example to crack down on policies and shifts conservatives did not like. Pure fear mongering for political gain.
Yeah, understanding complexity and nuance is so disgraceful. It is much more patriotic to simplify things into "YAY AMERICA! NEVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT HER!"
Pretty well actually. Yeah there are ignorant people, but look back a decade or two and you tend to see more ignorance, not less. I see a lot more questioning than I used to, with ignorant people more likely to be called out.
No more messed up than other generations, and probably a lot more introspective and aware of others than previous ones. In the past there was a clear hierarchy of who's feelings you had to take into account and who's you did not, now it is not so simple and groups who in the past were invisible or simply told to 'put up with it' are getting visibility among people outside their own.
Speech has always been restricted, it is simply who is restricted and to who's benefit has been shifting.
*nod* any law that 'mostly works' because massive amounts of violations are overlooked is deeply problematic and results in a minefield where well versed players get to rearrange the mines to their liking.
By your own requirements then it becomes impossible to provide examples since any case where copyright is used to stifle art is called plagiarism. All you have done is looped it around by saying the law is good because anything that violates the law is bad.
Something I will be curious to see over the next few decades is how propaganda is affected by advertising saturation. Something that has been worrying marketers is that young consumers (ones more accustomed to multitasking and who grew up with heavy advertizing) filter out a larger amount of marketing than other groups. Even as their knowledge and skills improve (ah, the dark uses of all those psych majors), advertising is becoming more difficult and consumers more jaded and less uniform.
Since propaganda can be seen as a specialized form of marketing, I wonder how that type of manipulation is going to adjust. It used to be that one coherent message would affect most of the population the same way, but increasingly the same techniques and narratives will have differing effects on different populations. So what we tend to see more and more of is propaganda generating smaller more fanatical groups along with others forming backlash against tem.. it kinda works if you examine only the successful parts of the application, but is no longer all that useful for changing general public perception, just creating partisans.
I think the analysis of the cold war is one of the reasons that millennials have such a different take on things. People who lived during it tend to have absorbed more of the hype and propaganda, they lived the fear. People who lived most of their lives after it tend to be more aware of how, if not outright fabricated, the public perception was twisted for the benefit of a fairly small (and now much wealthier) part of the population.
Perception of the cold was is similiar to the psychology of a nigerian scam, once you buy into it, people dig in further and further since any reexamination is an affront to their self image. It feels better to circle the wagons than feel foolish.
I don't know about that. Millennials by and large seem to be better informed, well, maybe not 'better', but more likely to know about things since they tend to be a lot more integrated with online communities. They are also more likely than older generations to have some (if light) knowledge of the technologies involved since they have gone more of their life exposed to them.
Consumers want all sorts of things that are not good ideas at large scale.
Though costs are artificial already, the low prices generally pay are dependent on those costs being picked up elsewhere rather than personal or industrial responsibility kicking in. For instance, raw material extraction keeps its costs low by having local residents around the facilities bare it. If they actually had to pay for the land and property they damaged the cost of things like steel would skyrocket, but instead individual property owners (and the hospital system) pick it up instead.
Lawsuits between artists (or artists and estate owners) are becoming increasingly common. Like copyright infringement, the idea of what constitutes a derived work in music has slowly been expanding to include content that 'sorta sounds like' pieces from another work. We have been seeing an increased mining by estates and holding companies of back catalogs looking for blues/jazz/rock/etc from a few decades ago and then looking for artists today who sound similar enough to convince a judge.
Creation is usually influenced or built off earlier creations. Very little music is created in a vacuum, and the line between 'inspiration' and 'derived work' can be fuzzy and subjective.
Because distrusting them blindly works so much better.
Yes, it is good to keep in mind that doctors can lie and do horrible things, but claims that they have done so on any particular topic need to be backed up with something substantial, something more than 'there have been lies in the past, and we REALLY want to believe this!'.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the job of the browser/downloader to detect, not Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper validates the App, not various data files it comes with.
Every once in a while some security tries restricting more system calls, but the functionality it strips breaks so many applications and annoys so many developers (and thus users who are no longer able to run things that used to work) that the attempt is backed off from.
Yeah, it is only a little better then 'if I have physical access I can change things, so the machine is insecure!'
sandboxing always involves a trade off. Apps do not have full root capabilities, but a compromised app can still do damage within its range, which unfortunately is the range of what people want apps to be doing.
Social engineering is usually the easy part.
I am not sure I would really call this a failure in its design, but an inherent security issue that is present on every OS ever built: any application that allows any type of data input (which a framework is) can potentially have problems with how it loads the data.
In this case not really. All he is describing is the first in a chain of requirements, the next one being finding a signed application that can be exploited. Probably doable, but a different (and somewhat duller) problem.
Multiple competing oligarchies.
It used to be that way with DSL too, it was wonderful. Actual choice!
Fines are also paid for by the company, which is 'other people's money' from the perspective of executives.
*shrug* no more 'threat' than we were. Two ruling classes hyping up their populations about how doomed we all are if we do not destroy the other, and anyone who gets in between us get either downplayed or hyped depending on who's side any particular proxy is.
The 'overthrow' part is one of the best examples of propaganda during the cold war. People daring to engage in democracy provided a great scare example to crack down on policies and shifts conservatives did not like. Pure fear mongering for political gain.
Yeah, understanding complexity and nuance is so disgraceful. It is much more patriotic to simplify things into "YAY AMERICA! NEVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT HER!"
Pretty well actually. Yeah there are ignorant people, but look back a decade or two and you tend to see more ignorance, not less. I see a lot more questioning than I used to, with ignorant people more likely to be called out.
No more messed up than other generations, and probably a lot more introspective and aware of others than previous ones. In the past there was a clear hierarchy of who's feelings you had to take into account and who's you did not, now it is not so simple and groups who in the past were invisible or simply told to 'put up with it' are getting visibility among people outside their own.
Speech has always been restricted, it is simply who is restricted and to who's benefit has been shifting.
*nod* any law that 'mostly works' because massive amounts of violations are overlooked is deeply problematic and results in a minefield where well versed players get to rearrange the mines to their liking.
By your own requirements then it becomes impossible to provide examples since any case where copyright is used to stifle art is called plagiarism. All you have done is looped it around by saying the law is good because anything that violates the law is bad.
Something I will be curious to see over the next few decades is how propaganda is affected by advertising saturation. Something that has been worrying marketers is that young consumers (ones more accustomed to multitasking and who grew up with heavy advertizing) filter out a larger amount of marketing than other groups. Even as their knowledge and skills improve (ah, the dark uses of all those psych majors), advertising is becoming more difficult and consumers more jaded and less uniform.
Since propaganda can be seen as a specialized form of marketing, I wonder how that type of manipulation is going to adjust. It used to be that one coherent message would affect most of the population the same way, but increasingly the same techniques and narratives will have differing effects on different populations. So what we tend to see more and more of is propaganda generating smaller more fanatical groups along with others forming backlash against tem.. it kinda works if you examine only the successful parts of the application, but is no longer all that useful for changing general public perception, just creating partisans.
I think the analysis of the cold war is one of the reasons that millennials have such a different take on things. People who lived during it tend to have absorbed more of the hype and propaganda, they lived the fear. People who lived most of their lives after it tend to be more aware of how, if not outright fabricated, the public perception was twisted for the benefit of a fairly small (and now much wealthier) part of the population.
Perception of the cold was is similiar to the psychology of a nigerian scam, once you buy into it, people dig in further and further since any reexamination is an affront to their self image. It feels better to circle the wagons than feel foolish.
I don't know about that. Millennials by and large seem to be better informed, well, maybe not 'better', but more likely to know about things since they tend to be a lot more integrated with online communities. They are also more likely than older generations to have some (if light) knowledge of the technologies involved since they have gone more of their life exposed to them.
The key is balance. Too far in either direction ends up going badly.
Consumers want all sorts of things that are not good ideas at large scale.
Though costs are artificial already, the low prices generally pay are dependent on those costs being picked up elsewhere rather than personal or industrial responsibility kicking in. For instance, raw material extraction keeps its costs low by having local residents around the facilities bare it. If they actually had to pay for the land and property they damaged the cost of things like steel would skyrocket, but instead individual property owners (and the hospital system) pick it up instead.
Lawsuits between artists (or artists and estate owners) are becoming increasingly common. Like copyright infringement, the idea of what constitutes a derived work in music has slowly been expanding to include content that 'sorta sounds like' pieces from another work. We have been seeing an increased mining by estates and holding companies of back catalogs looking for blues/jazz/rock/etc from a few decades ago and then looking for artists today who sound similar enough to convince a judge.
Creation is usually influenced or built off earlier creations. Very little music is created in a vacuum, and the line between 'inspiration' and 'derived work' can be fuzzy and subjective.
Iron is also a poison, esp when forged into a hammer and applied at high velocity.
Form and method of application are pretty important when determining what effect the chemical will have on a body.
Because distrusting them blindly works so much better.
Yes, it is good to keep in mind that doctors can lie and do horrible things, but claims that they have done so on any particular topic need to be backed up with something substantial, something more than 'there have been lies in the past, and we REALLY want to believe this!'.