This is the proper level of "paranoia" required to keep data secret! However, US tech companies should also be having the realization that they need to stop selling/enabling insecure products because the buyers may end up being their workers. Hack a worker's wireless printer via internet (easy), move laterally via bluetooth to their smartphone (outdated and insecure) and you have a remote surveillance device in your "secure" workplace. Each step of insecurity brought to you by good ol' US tech companies.
There is so much insecurable crap in computers and products that it's going to be a monumental task to actually secure companies. Sure hope PS/2 keyboards and mice are coming back into fashion because USB is a security nightmare.
Doesn't it concern you that the government can just say "national security concerns" and ban pretty much anything?
Not really because they are only banning it for government use. As long as I'm free to make my own mistakes, it's all good.
Ping is right, if there is no oversight or evidence required then the government is out of control and the normal system of checks and balances has failed.
No, not really because A) the government is only setting rules for the government (not the people) and B) two branches of government (Executive and Legislative) have cooperated to create this ban.
Ping is just trying to have it both ways, knows he can't and is muddying the waters as much as possible so that useful idiots like you won't recognize this is the government acting properly.
The company's lawsuit contends that the law which bans Huawei equipment without evidence and trial is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Anyone that's even heard of a clue, let alone has half of one, knows that national security is a valid and perfectly constitutional reason to prohibit government agencies from purchasing equipment or services from a foreign actor.
Nothing in the law prevent private businesses from buying Huawei equipment but doing so could effectively lock them out of doing business with the federal government. It's just like the Kaspersky Anti-Virus situation where people a free to use it but it's a big no-no for the federal government.
I'm glad to read that Instagram users have gone from annoying local trend to global menace. Maybe the U.N. will finally start taking my proposal to "Hunt Instagram Users To Extinction" seriously.;)
Forget the children, I'm worried about idiots running into me.
Whoever said it would be on a public road. It could easily be a private road or track?
If only I had thought of that, oh wait, I did.
When you can afford to have your own roads build then I'm sure Volvo will be willing to sell you a custom car for you to die in at the highest possible speed.
When you can afford to have your own roads build then I'm sure Volvo will be willing to sell you a custom car for you to die in at the highest possible speed.
If I want to kill myself at 113 MPH, volvo shouldn't stop me.
This is on par with anti-vaxxer logic because it's not your road. Other people drive on it and if you run into them and die at top speed then you are likely to kill them too.
When you can afford to have your own roads build then I'm sure Volvo will be willing to sell you a custom car for you to die in at the highest possible speed.
No fellow human. Just buy a regular "smart device" because the more you have, the more chance your data will be compromised and exposed is it's a Good Thing (tm) for you!
The more we learn, the more it's a Good Thing (tm) for you!
Fellow human, do not Just buy a regular "dumb TV".
Goodbye, fellow human. Do not let the bed bugs itch.
If you disagree with China's policies regarding censorship, why would you want Google to stop?
Because the second it's complete, other nations will suddenly demand their own. This is about more than just China.
If you stop the project entirely, then you don't have a seat at the table and China will make it on their own.
They already have... and it's based on old stolen IP from Google.
At least Google gets to influence direction and build a level of comfort in that over time can help them ease up on their control.
In an authoritarian regime that is hellbent on becoming a massive exporter of goods by 2025? Please, don't make me laugh.
China's approach to free speech is extremely different than most Western thoughts on this, but when understood in the context of their history is completely understandable.
China's only approach to free speech has been to crush it. The people who want to speak the truth a jailed and/or killed. I don't think anyone in China wants to be jailed or killed.
China has gone through several cycles over the past several thousand years where affluence and economic growth leads to a cultural mismatch between classes, that often results in a period of major wars, destruction and death. The Chinese government knows this, and they know they're currently headed to one of those cycles again, as about 400M people live in a decent middle class lifestyle and about 900M people live in poverty today.
They should keep doing the same thing but you are expecting a different outcome? Perhaps it's time for a new approach. Taiwan is doing quite well. Seems like maybe that's the better model to follow.
You seemed to have missed the point entirely. The objection was that "the last thing we need is for Amazon / Google / Facebook to become the arbiters as to what we think, see, and hear" but I choose to not use their services and thus they are incapable for being the arbiters or anything for me.
It's like you are arguing about that the paint on my car is going to peel when my house burns down in response to me pointing out my house is not located on a flood plane so I have little worries about flooding. Even if you were right, it's still totally unrelated.
CDC’s analysis, based on 2015-2016 data from 31 states and Washington, D.C., showed:
* Across demographic categories, the largest increase in opioid overdose death rates was in males between the ages of 25-44.
* Overall drug overdose death rates increased by 21.5 percent.
** The overdose death rate from synthetic opioids (other than methadone) more than doubled, likely driven by illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF).
** The prescription opioid-related overdose death rate increased by 10.6 percent.
** The heroin-related overdose death rate increased by 19.5 percent.
** The cocaine-related overdose death rate increased by 52.4 percent.
** The psychostimulant-related overdose death rate increased by 33.3 percent.
...
* Fourteen states had significant increases in death rates involving psychostimulants; the highest death rates occurred primarily in the Midwest and Western regions.
And when everyone is taxed for their CO2 output, coal will be completely non-viable option for energy generation. Check the last line of my post which addresses this.
Right, a free source of energy that greedy people are just supposed to "leave".
Reading is fundamental.
"B-b-b-but other countries pollute too!" but knowing the monetary cost of the damage they are doing will allow all countries to tax imports based on their originating country. As such, they will either end up paying for the pollution and/or lose to competing environmentally friendly nations.
If you don't understand why this concept would prevent such actions then I don't think anyone can help you.
Slashdot Mirror
Cause: a result of an underlying belief that other people are hostile [and long time spying on others] in combination with a lack in self-awareness
China is the number one thief of IP while the US is the number two thief of IP. The later fact does not negate the former.
It's not wrong for them to be concerned. Sure, it's hypocritical but it's not wrong.
This is the proper level of "paranoia" required to keep data secret! However, US tech companies should also be having the realization that they need to stop selling/enabling insecure products because the buyers may end up being their workers. Hack a worker's wireless printer via internet (easy), move laterally via bluetooth to their smartphone (outdated and insecure) and you have a remote surveillance device in your "secure" workplace. Each step of insecurity brought to you by good ol' US tech companies.
There is so much insecurable crap in computers and products that it's going to be a monumental task to actually secure companies. Sure hope PS/2 keyboards and mice are coming back into fashion because USB is a security nightmare.
You reap what you sow, US tech companies!
Doesn't it concern you that the government can just say "national security concerns" and ban pretty much anything?
Not really because they are only banning it for government use. As long as I'm free to make my own mistakes, it's all good.
Ping is right, if there is no oversight or evidence required then the government is out of control and the normal system of checks and balances has failed.
No, not really because A) the government is only setting rules for the government (not the people) and B) two branches of government (Executive and Legislative) have cooperated to create this ban.
Ping is just trying to have it both ways, knows he can't and is muddying the waters as much as possible so that useful idiots like you won't recognize this is the government acting properly.
Looked at the situation through another lens...
Is that lens labeled "50 Cent Army"? ;)
The company's lawsuit contends that the law which bans Huawei equipment without evidence and trial is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Anyone that's even heard of a clue, let alone has half of one, knows that national security is a valid and perfectly constitutional reason to prohibit government agencies from purchasing equipment or services from a foreign actor.
They are challenging John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA 2019), specifically Section 889.
Nothing in the law prevent private businesses from buying Huawei equipment but doing so could effectively lock them out of doing business with the federal government. It's just like the Kaspersky Anti-Virus situation where people a free to use it but it's a big no-no for the federal government.
I'm glad to read that Instagram users have gone from annoying local trend to global menace. Maybe the U.N. will finally start taking my proposal to "Hunt Instagram Users To Extinction" seriously. ;)
Java: works now, breaks later.
The upside is it's doing so without sucking up all of your information.
The downside is that it's going to suck up all your information for other reasons. ;)
Buy an AMD chip and motherboard.
And that is "think of the children" logic.
Forget the children, I'm worried about idiots running into me.
Whoever said it would be on a public road. It could easily be a private road or track?
If only I had thought of that, oh wait, I did.
When you can afford to have your own roads build then I'm sure Volvo will be willing to sell you a custom car for you to die in at the highest possible speed.
you idiots needs to learn to read.
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.
When you can afford to have your own roads build then I'm sure Volvo will be willing to sell you a custom car for you to die in at the highest possible speed.
If I want to kill myself at 113 MPH, volvo shouldn't stop me.
This is on par with anti-vaxxer logic because it's not your road. Other people drive on it and if you run into them and die at top speed then you are likely to kill them too.
When you can afford to have your own roads build then I'm sure Volvo will be willing to sell you a custom car for you to die in at the highest possible speed.
Doesn't sound like a winning proposition in anyone's boardroom.
No fellow human. Just buy a regular "smart device" because the more you have, the more chance your data will be compromised and exposed is it's a Good Thing (tm) for you!
The more we learn, the more it's a Good Thing (tm) for you!
Fellow human, do not Just buy a regular "dumb TV".
Goodbye, fellow human. Do not let the bed bugs itch.
Why limit yourself to one approach when you can attack the problem in every way you can?
So you want them to break the law and give away a billion dollars in tech? Doesn't sound like a winning proposition in anyone's boardroom.
Yes, being in China would suck. But their policies certainly aren't going to change because of a google.cn site.
The second this censorship engine is complete, other nations will suddenly demand their own version too. This is about more than just China.
If you disagree with China's policies regarding censorship, why would you want Google to stop?
Because the second it's complete, other nations will suddenly demand their own. This is about more than just China.
If you stop the project entirely, then you don't have a seat at the table and China will make it on their own.
They already have... and it's based on old stolen IP from Google.
At least Google gets to influence direction and build a level of comfort in that over time can help them ease up on their control.
In an authoritarian regime that is hellbent on becoming a massive exporter of goods by 2025? Please, don't make me laugh.
China's approach to free speech is extremely different than most Western thoughts on this, but when understood in the context of their history is completely understandable.
China's only approach to free speech has been to crush it. The people who want to speak the truth a jailed and/or killed. I don't think anyone in China wants to be jailed or killed.
China has gone through several cycles over the past several thousand years where affluence and economic growth leads to a cultural mismatch between classes, that often results in a period of major wars, destruction and death. The Chinese government knows this, and they know they're currently headed to one of those cycles again, as about 400M people live in a decent middle class lifestyle and about 900M people live in poverty today.
They should keep doing the same thing but you are expecting a different outcome? Perhaps it's time for a new approach. Taiwan is doing quite well. Seems like maybe that's the better model to follow.
Perhaps a novel compromise
Wow... talk about not understanding how authoritarianism works.
In China, you do things their way; no highway option.
Oh yeah? It's not even cloudy today and it rained last night!
Well the CDC should know, after all it's about half their fault. As synthetic opioids were starting to become common, they pushed guidelines,
No they didn't because the CDC doesn't deal with medical guidelines. I get the feeling you don't know what the CDC is or what it does.
You seemed to have missed the point entirely. The objection was that "the last thing we need is for Amazon / Google / Facebook to become the arbiters as to what we think, see, and hear" but I choose to not use their services and thus they are incapable for being the arbiters or anything for me.
It's like you are arguing about that the paint on my car is going to peel when my house burns down in response to me pointing out my house is not located on a flood plane so I have little worries about flooding. Even if you were right, it's still totally unrelated.
U.S. drug overdose deaths continue to rise; increase fueled by synthetic opioids
CDC’s analysis, based on 2015-2016 data from 31 states and Washington, D.C., showed:
* Across demographic categories, the largest increase in opioid overdose death rates was in males between the ages of 25-44.
* Overall drug overdose death rates increased by 21.5 percent.
** The overdose death rate from synthetic opioids (other than methadone) more than doubled, likely driven by illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF).
** The prescription opioid-related overdose death rate increased by 10.6 percent.
** The heroin-related overdose death rate increased by 19.5 percent.
** The cocaine-related overdose death rate increased by 52.4 percent.
** The psychostimulant-related overdose death rate increased by 33.3 percent.
* Fourteen states had significant increases in death rates involving psychostimulants; the highest death rates occurred primarily in the Midwest and Western regions.
And when everyone is taxed for their CO2 output, coal will be completely non-viable option for energy generation. Check the last line of my post which addresses this.
Right, a free source of energy that greedy people are just supposed to "leave".
Reading is fundamental.
"B-b-b-but other countries pollute too!" but knowing the monetary cost of the damage they are doing will allow all countries to tax imports based on their originating country. As such, they will either end up paying for the pollution and/or lose to competing environmentally friendly nations.
If you don't understand why this concept would prevent such actions then I don't think anyone can help you.