Without Flash, Adobe or Microsoft installed on their machines and without running external 3rd-party software, what do OS X users have to be afraid of?
Bold mine. So you're depending on the user to not go around a security feature to get a shiny app. But these "Steam Stealers" mainly work on the principle of fooling users into installing trojans. Even OS X users like forbidden fruit, which is why you can find instructions on how to install 3rd party apps in OS X, and isn't it funny how they mention Steam?
"As a rule, please make sure the web site you're downloading from is legitimate: Make sure it's the vendor's actual site, for example, or go with a third-party service you trust (like Steam or Macgamestore.com for downloading games, for example)."
In the context of what I replied to, the real word works as I described. American's are mostly for "bully" Presidents. Non-intervention doesn't sell when it comes to votes. The majority of Americans support drone attacks. The majority of Americans supported the Iraq war to remove Saddam Hussein.
With regards to voting, what can be said is that major candidates for the Presidency with serious positions on non-interventionism have never gotten much traction with the public, so the issue is definitely not an overriding one.
You mean, if they'd sent work email from a personal account? That has been pretty common practice, at all levels of government and private industry, with laws restricting state business to state computers being relatively recent impositions.
While I've seen people do it on occasion as a matter of expediency when they were away from work, I don't think it was at all common to use a non-work address as a primary address, and certainly not for a job with sensitive information.
"The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned. "
With much grubbing around, there's maybe a dozen emails on that server that might merit security classification
There are at least 22 with Top Secret classification, not just "might merit security classification". Of course, it's just common sense that using a personal address as primary address for government business greatly amplifies the risk for this happening.
If, out of thousands of secure and insecure communications over four years, there were a dozen transmitted over the wrong system, this hardly seems the traitorous breech of national security it's made out as.
I suggest reading the link from my last post, which shows the government going after low-level employees for relatively minor breeches.
The whole thing reeks, from her "Foundation", to her and Bill's speaking engagements, to her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, all the way to her use of a personal email server as a primary government business address completely under her control:
"Experts such as Metcalfe agree that these practices are allowed by federal law,[25][28] at least in case of emergencies,[20] but discourage the practice, believing that official email accounts should be used.[19] Jason R. Baron, the former head of litigation at NARA, described the practice as "highly unusual" but not a violation of the law. In a separate interview, he said, "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario--short of nuclear winter--where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business."[20][29][30] Baron told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2015 that "any employee's decision to conduct all email correspondence through a private email network, using a non-.gov address, is inconsistent with long-established policies and practices under the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies".[31]"
I fucking hate the idea of Billary as President, but lets not pretend the reason she is bad is because she has committed crimes. Let's just admit she hasn't done anything out of the ordinary, and that is what disqualifies her.
I believe if an ordinary employee had done what she had done, they at minimum would have been fired, and potentially would have gone to prison. If they were a whisteblower, they almost surely would have gone to prison as retaliation: http://www.washingtontimes.com...
I also believe her "Foundation" is a tax-free piggy bank for her to pay salaries to cronies (at the minimum) that lobbyists looking for influence contribute to, on top of any money she or Bill makes from speaking engagements.
Let's just admit she hasn't done anything out of the ordinary
Perhaps in the sense that high-profile politicians routinely engage in such shenanigans without accountability.
Of course, the Trump phenomenon goes away on its own as soon as the Republican Party puts up a candidate worth voting for. The problem is they've never done that before and they don't know where to start.
Really? Who's the candidate "worth voting for" by the Democrats? Is it the socialist Bernie Sanders, who wants more government handouts? Or is it the Washington crony Clinton, with her "Foundation" and status quo politics?
I think there were several Republican candidates who were/are at least no worse than these two.
So it's ok to DDoS and hack voting machines for candidates you don't like? Anybody that attempts to do that should go to prison, and anybody advocating for such measures is an authoritarian.
They did seriously hurt the church of scientology. The church easily repaired the damage, but it left their reputation in ruins - not a shred of respect left for them, a laughing-stock.
Scientology was already a laughing stock before "Anonymous" took up the cause.
This is why circumstantial evidence isn't nearly sufficient for conviction.
You're wrong. If a jury decides that enough circumstantial evidence exists to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", then that's enough for conviction.
You were probably around during the Hans Reiser trial. No body, but plenty of circumstantial evidence. The prevailing Slashdot mood was defending Reiser, but based on the evidence I figured he was guilty as hell and was glad when he got convicted. It was even sweeter when he took a deal, admitted to the crime, and disclosed the location of the body.
Holy shit, dude, just admit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You've got the fog machine on full blast. You made a mistake, you were corrected, deal with it.
The server would be using for these speech activities would generally be located in some western country in the offices of some ex-pat group from their country, except for where they're just using it to access mainstream international news.
But the whole point of TOR is that the server doesn't know who the real TOR user is. So your original statement "You already have to trust the remote server not to tattle to your government in that case." doesn't make any sense.
There is no conspiracy theory involved. This is all stuff you would find out if you went and looked it up.
I didn't need to look it up because I already knew the origins of TOR. What you don't understand is that while it may have come out of the US government, it's a neutral protocol.
As for the technical details of where the logs are expected to be and where not, you didn't actually say anything other than "hurr durr ur wrong."
"Instead of taking a direct route from source to destination, data packets on the Tor network take a random pathway through several relays that cover your tracks so no observer at any single point can tell where the data came from or where it's going."
If you're on Tor for free speech, of course you don't care because you're not there for privacy; you're there to disguise your activities from local observation of the network. You already have to trust the remote server not to tattle to your government in that case.
This comment makes no sense. Of course you want privacy for free speech if you're using TOR, and the whole point of TOR is to prevent the server or anybody else from identifying you.
That's why you're a useful idiot. Rather than address reality, you fall back to calling somebody racist when they point out real problems and resort to false equivalences. I'm guessing those girls that were chased around the mall would have a different opinion of your "JUST LIKE THEM" assessment.
A technical expert on the jury could easily manipulate the rest by appeal to authority, even though he/she has a biased opinion of the case and dubious evaluation of the evidence.
That's exactly what happened in the Samsung vs Apple case.
I'm "JUST LIKE THEM"? Sorry, I'm not a migrant from Africa or the Middle East, I was born in my country, and I can't name an incident where I or anybody like me was part of a mob of 30 people chasing teenage girls around a fucking mall.
But I think Facebook added a real name policy in the meantime.
Facebook has always had a real name policy. That's what Google+ was trying to emulate, like a bunch of idiots, instead of providing an alternative. Google backed away from it, but the damage was done.
What's the matter, attending Anita's talk at XOXO and banning GamerGate from 4chan wasn't enough for you? Does he have to crawl on glass and transition into a woman before he can join the club?
I don't really care if I get modded down so far I can't edit my hosts file for moo-ing. [..] Mod me down; label me a troll. But I used to be your neighbour. I used to be your friend.
Well if you really didn't care, then you would have just stated your case without the special pleading, because we all know that whenever you do this the opposite happens and you get modded +5.
I haven't had a need to play a DVD on my PC in years, but if I did I'd install VLC (but actually I wouldn't even bother with a DVD player on a new PC purchase). You can uninstall crapware or install Linux. Or you can just buy a cheap Chromebook or Chromebox if all you want is a computer for old people with no technical skills.
Oh, and if you want to do PC gaming... I can toss in a $50, "outdated" graphics card and play most games at decent settings. Do that with your Mac Mini POS.
Slashdot Mirror
Without Flash, Adobe or Microsoft installed on their machines and without running external 3rd-party software, what do OS X users have to be afraid of?
Bold mine. So you're depending on the user to not go around a security feature to get a shiny app. But these "Steam Stealers" mainly work on the principle of fooling users into installing trojans. Even OS X users like forbidden fruit, which is why you can find instructions on how to install 3rd party apps in OS X, and isn't it funny how they mention Steam?
http://www.imore.com/how-insta...
"As a rule, please make sure the web site you're downloading from is legitimate: Make sure it's the vendor's actual site, for example, or go with a third-party service you trust (like Steam or Macgamestore.com for downloading games, for example)."
In the context of what I replied to, the real word works as I described. American's are mostly for "bully" Presidents. Non-intervention doesn't sell when it comes to votes. The majority of Americans support drone attacks. The majority of Americans supported the Iraq war to remove Saddam Hussein.
With regards to voting, what can be said is that major candidates for the Presidency with serious positions on non-interventionism have never gotten much traction with the public, so the issue is definitely not an overriding one.
You mean, if they'd sent work email from a personal account? That has been pretty common practice, at all levels of government and private industry, with laws restricting state business to state computers being relatively recent impositions.
While I've seen people do it on occasion as a matter of expediency when they were away from work, I don't think it was at all common to use a non-work address as a primary address, and certainly not for a job with sensitive information.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
"The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned. "
With much grubbing around, there's maybe a dozen emails on that server that might merit security classification
There are at least 22 with Top Secret classification, not just "might merit security classification". Of course, it's just common sense that using a personal address as primary address for government business greatly amplifies the risk for this happening.
If, out of thousands of secure and insecure communications over four years, there were a dozen transmitted over the wrong system, this hardly seems the traitorous breech of national security it's made out as.
I suggest reading the link from my last post, which shows the government going after low-level employees for relatively minor breeches.
The whole thing reeks, from her "Foundation", to her and Bill's speaking engagements, to her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, all the way to her use of a personal email server as a primary government business address completely under her control:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Experts such as Metcalfe agree that these practices are allowed by federal law,[25][28] at least in case of emergencies,[20] but discourage the practice, believing that official email accounts should be used.[19] Jason R. Baron, the former head of litigation at NARA, described the practice as "highly unusual" but not a violation of the law. In a separate interview, he said, "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario--short of nuclear winter--where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business."[20][29][30] Baron told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2015 that "any employee's decision to conduct all email correspondence through a private email network, using a non-.gov address, is inconsistent with long-established policies and practices under the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies".[31]"
I fucking hate the idea of Billary as President, but lets not pretend the reason she is bad is because she has committed crimes. Let's just admit she hasn't done anything out of the ordinary, and that is what disqualifies her.
I believe if an ordinary employee had done what she had done, they at minimum would have been fired, and potentially would have gone to prison. If they were a whisteblower, they almost surely would have gone to prison as retaliation: http://www.washingtontimes.com...
I also believe her "Foundation" is a tax-free piggy bank for her to pay salaries to cronies (at the minimum) that lobbyists looking for influence contribute to, on top of any money she or Bill makes from speaking engagements.
Let's just admit she hasn't done anything out of the ordinary
Perhaps in the sense that high-profile politicians routinely engage in such shenanigans without accountability.
But most American's aren't going to vote for a non-interventionist, so in a sense there opinion was already asked.
Of course, the Trump phenomenon goes away on its own as soon as the Republican Party puts up a candidate worth voting for. The problem is they've never done that before and they don't know where to start.
Really? Who's the candidate "worth voting for" by the Democrats? Is it the socialist Bernie Sanders, who wants more government handouts? Or is it the Washington crony Clinton, with her "Foundation" and status quo politics?
I think there were several Republican candidates who were/are at least no worse than these two.
So it's ok to DDoS and hack voting machines for candidates you don't like? Anybody that attempts to do that should go to prison, and anybody advocating for such measures is an authoritarian.
They did seriously hurt the church of scientology. The church easily repaired the damage, but it left their reputation in ruins - not a shred of respect left for them, a laughing-stock.
Scientology was already a laughing stock before "Anonymous" took up the cause.
I actually watched the linked videos. Do you have a refutation beyond wrong-vote accusations?
This is why circumstantial evidence isn't nearly sufficient for conviction.
You're wrong. If a jury decides that enough circumstantial evidence exists to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", then that's enough for conviction.
You were probably around during the Hans Reiser trial. No body, but plenty of circumstantial evidence. The prevailing Slashdot mood was defending Reiser, but based on the evidence I figured he was guilty as hell and was glad when he got convicted. It was even sweeter when he took a deal, admitted to the crime, and disclosed the location of the body.
Holy shit, dude, just admit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You've got the fog machine on full blast. You made a mistake, you were corrected, deal with it.
The server would be using for these speech activities would generally be located in some western country in the offices of some ex-pat group from their country, except for where they're just using it to access mainstream international news.
But the whole point of TOR is that the server doesn't know who the real TOR user is. So your original statement "You already have to trust the remote server not to tattle to your government in that case." doesn't make any sense.
There is no conspiracy theory involved. This is all stuff you would find out if you went and looked it up .
I didn't need to look it up because I already knew the origins of TOR. What you don't understand is that while it may have come out of the US government, it's a neutral protocol.
As for the technical details of where the logs are expected to be and where not, you didn't actually say anything other than "hurr durr ur wrong."
Then follow your own advice and look it up. This is basic info. But here, let me spoon feed you: https://www.torproject.org/abo...
"Instead of taking a direct route from source to destination, data packets on the Tor network take a random pathway through several relays that cover your tracks so no observer at any single point can tell where the data came from or where it's going."
The "complete fail" is on your part. First you misunderstand TOR, then you come back with conspiracy theories. You're all over the map.
If you're on Tor for free speech, of course you don't care because you're not there for privacy; you're there to disguise your activities from local observation of the network. You already have to trust the remote server not to tattle to your government in that case.
This comment makes no sense. Of course you want privacy for free speech if you're using TOR, and the whole point of TOR is to prevent the server or anybody else from identifying you.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
That's why you're a useful idiot. Rather than address reality, you fall back to calling somebody racist when they point out real problems and resort to false equivalences. I'm guessing those girls that were chased around the mall would have a different opinion of your "JUST LIKE THEM" assessment.
Here, have another link, useful idiot: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
A technical expert on the jury could easily manipulate the rest by appeal to authority, even though he/she has a biased opinion of the case and dubious evaluation of the evidence.
That's exactly what happened in the Samsung vs Apple case.
I'm "JUST LIKE THEM"? Sorry, I'm not a migrant from Africa or the Middle East, I was born in my country, and I can't name an incident where I or anybody like me was part of a mob of 30 people chasing teenage girls around a fucking mall.
Here, have another link, useful idiot: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
But I think Facebook added a real name policy in the meantime.
Facebook has always had a real name policy. That's what Google+ was trying to emulate, like a bunch of idiots, instead of providing an alternative. Google backed away from it, but the damage was done.
What's the matter, attending Anita's talk at XOXO and banning GamerGate from 4chan wasn't enough for you? Does he have to crawl on glass and transition into a woman before he can join the club?
You too. Here, have another link that you can bury your head in the sand from:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
You really need to grow up, friends.
Yes, patronizing comments like these are so helpful. Keep it up, "friend".
I don't really care if I get modded down so far I can't edit my hosts file for moo-ing. [..] Mod me down; label me a troll. But I used to be your neighbour. I used to be your friend.
Well if you really didn't care, then you would have just stated your case without the special pleading, because we all know that whenever you do this the opposite happens and you get modded +5.
I haven't had a need to play a DVD on my PC in years, but if I did I'd install VLC (but actually I wouldn't even bother with a DVD player on a new PC purchase). You can uninstall crapware or install Linux. Or you can just buy a cheap Chromebook or Chromebox if all you want is a computer for old people with no technical skills.
Oh, and if you want to do PC gaming... I can toss in a $50, "outdated" graphics card and play most games at decent settings. Do that with your Mac Mini POS.
Can't give you the smug Mac user feeling though.
Whatever you say, useful idiot. Here, have a another link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...