This wasn't about storing backups (unless the lawyer who wrote it was misinformed about what they needed to have to give backup tapes to an armored car company):
When I kennel your dog, I don't give you a reasonable ToS at the beginning of your vacation, then silently change the ToS two days later to read "you grant irrevocable, perpetual license to sublicense this license, breed your dog, alter your dogs' puppies genetic codes, rent your dog to a movie-studio for a non-PETA approved stunt, clone your dog, etc"
There were things in the new ToS that they never would need for backups. That said, I think what raised the most ire were the all-too-commons clauses of "we can change the ToS any time we want" and "By continuing to use the service, you agree to this ToS" combined with _not_ announcing the new ToS.
I have had the same password for over 15 years and never had any trouble because... I don't tell it to anyone. The problem with passwords is when people do dumb things like share them with someone else, or worse, write them down.
Or when a server you used it on 12 years ago got its HDDs stolen/dumped w/o being wiped. Or if an unscrupulous sysadmin has modified ssh to store unencrypted username-password pairs (and you're not using keys). Changing every now and then makes sense, but you're completely correct about the "every 60 days, never any repeats, must use all 255 characters in the ASCII table, and be a minimum of 4096 characters". Security policy by committee is what that is.
I didn't have a problem with the original ToS, because I could prevent them from using pictures of my family in adverts by just canceling. These new ToS claim to be able to sublicence photos of my friends' children to anyone at any time. Of course, the terms don't apply since they never gave notice of the change in the ToS, and they still haven't.
Aye. I've often found charging a phone on a foreign computer is often as simple as booting into the BIOS password screen. The USB ports all usually deliver max power, expecting a USB boot device to be plugged in.
Just as the religious people are hoping for the Second Coming to say to the atheists. Oh Oh here is God he about to put the smack down on you. You should have lived your life based on these values, and now you gonna pay.
Technically, only a small percentage of Christians are actually hoping for the Second Coming, and for those that are, it's for different reasons than you espouse (usually a desire to see the permanent end to war/death/cyclical-suffering). I know quite a few Christians who fervently pray to forestall the Second Coming, hoping for more time to change the hearts and minds of those close to them.
Back on topic: it's a silly name, but easier to remember than Higgs-Boson, so it's here to stay.
I always make a point of noting who wrote the summary if it is kdawson I usually know the title and/or summary is going to be bullshit.
But if kdawson posted something, you can usually RTFA to find out how badly the submitter misinterpreted things. This time, there was no backup link. "TechForensics" could have said "kdawson eats babies" and kdawson would have posted it.
Then I went to browse the profiles of people I knew were on Facebook, only to find out that you have to "friend" them in order to read their profiles, which would of course subject you to an incoming torrent of high school bullshit from everyone on their friends lists.
Unless you're a recent graduate, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised about how well people change. College tends to burn the adolescence out of people, and living day-to-day can do so as well. I'll bet most of your old tormentors are loving parents who'd enjoy showing off the mini versions of themselves, and will want to see your kids. They're on FB _because_ they want to connect with people! But post the pictures on your own website. FB's ToS are evil.
We dont need as much manual labor as we used to. We need more thinkers.
I contend that we need the reverse. Those magic hydro/aero-ponic buildings aren't going to get thought into existence. A few people are going to think it up, then a few thousand people are going to build them; same ratio as most of history. The U.S. already has a glut of (exclusive) thinkers, and we're groaning under the weight; all trying to out-think each other to get the few goods and services the doers provide. Other countries with higher percentages of doers seem to be well set for the future (until they do silly things like build a dam that makes a new lake that causes an earthquake).
It wasn't anything vulgar, and they were fully clothed. That said, it was incredibly incongruent with the type of matching site EH tries to be. Basically, FB threw a random picture in a dating-site ad and screwed up.
This is precisely the reason my gf and I use pseudonyms on Facebook that are linked to throw away email accounts. My friends and family in meatspace know my handle, and that's all I really want on my friend list. Facebook can still gather a lot of data about me, but it cannot be connected to my real identity.
Unless you and your GF religiously clean cookies and only access FB from coffee houses, they already know your real names via beacon and/or extrapolating what friends/family you have on FB, and what they say (they might occasionally mention your real names).
My big fear was having potential employers or clients getting a peek behind the curtain into my real world, and that just can't happen.
I wonder how many bright 18 year olds will have political or high end corporate careers derailed because of data indiscretions as a youth. I'm glad this wasn't around when I was kid because all my youthful stupidity would have been captured forever.
I'm not worried about my real world; I'm worried about a potentially fake world. FB says they have the right to alter anyone's data. Someone could post a photo that has me in it, tag my real name, and FB now modifies it for a worldwide ad: "'Culture20' eats nuclear waste! We have pictures (join Facebook now)!"
Every upload is assigned a unique new filename. There is no replacement possible. Essentially, FB was designed with this end-game in mind. It just wasn't as palatable from the start, so they had to work it in via ToS changes.
You joke about this, but FB was using under-aged girls in suggestive poses in an Eharmony ad. They removed them after being informed, but it shows they have some QC issues in marketing and legal.
I'm a little sketchy on this one, can they actually do this? I mean, the users signed up under the expectation that copyright law would be honored. I don't think that they actually have a legal leg to stand on here. You can change the TOS so that new material uploaded will be owned by Facebook, but changing the TOS and expecting that to change the copyright on a lot of media retroactively? I only pray that this is what kills facebook so I can stop hearing people rant about how great it is and how I should join.
FB was already gambling that old users who no longer have accounts wouldn't know their content is being used for internal advertising, etc (since they no longer have accounts with FB), so now they're just taking the next step of saying they own you (they say they can use or relicense your _likeness_ , not just your original content, forever and ever). You read the ToS and object? Well, you had to use FB to cancel your account since there's no external email, phone, snailmail contacts, so they own your stuff now.
Can they do this? Sure they can. They'll make $X on the advertising, and every 1/1,000,000,000 times, they'll have a user notice that their content is used inappropriately. That user will sue for $Y where X>$1,000,000>Y. Facebook makes a profit.
What sucks is that FB _is_ really useful for getting in contact with old friends that you would otherwise have to hire a PI to find. What really sucks is no amount of "they can't do that" "that's illegal in my country/state/city" "I'll sue if they use my stuff" willchange their actions. FB is going to act on what they believe they can do until they are rudely informed otherwise by some government(s).
But are the control rats normal rats, gene-effected stupid rats, or gene-effected stupid rats with trained-better-memory (probably not the latter)?
If they're normal rats, then they could teach things well too.
Can you really claim an exception for FOSS?
Given that FOSS always gets you #1, it should be concluded that you can only get #1 and #2 or #1 and #3.
Numbers 1,2,3 are from the developer's point of view. If the developer sees only 2&3 (ie, someone - maybe even the dev - pays for the development), then end user sees all 1,2,3.
Re:Greatest moments from the action figure line?
on
G.I. Joe Game On the Way
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Apparently you never got to play with bottle rockets. Snake Eyes, your noble sacrifice in the pursuit of science shall not be forgotten.
Slashdot Mirror
This wasn't about storing backups (unless the lawyer who wrote it was misinformed about what they needed to have to give backup tapes to an armored car company):
When I kennel your dog, I don't give you a reasonable ToS at the beginning of your vacation, then silently change the ToS two days later to read "you grant irrevocable, perpetual license to sublicense this license, breed your dog, alter your dogs' puppies genetic codes, rent your dog to a movie-studio for a non-PETA approved stunt, clone your dog, etc"
There were things in the new ToS that they never would need for backups. That said, I think what raised the most ire were the all-too-commons clauses of "we can change the ToS any time we want" and "By continuing to use the service, you agree to this ToS" combined with _not_ announcing the new ToS.
I have had the same password for over 15 years and never had any trouble because ... I don't tell it to anyone. The problem with passwords is when people do dumb things like share them with someone else, or worse, write them down.
Or when a server you used it on 12 years ago got its HDDs stolen/dumped w/o being wiped. Or if an unscrupulous sysadmin has modified ssh to store unencrypted username-password pairs (and you're not using keys). Changing every now and then makes sense, but you're completely correct about the "every 60 days, never any repeats, must use all 255 characters in the ASCII table, and be a minimum of 4096 characters". Security policy by committee is what that is.
I didn't have a problem with the original ToS, because I could prevent them from using pictures of my family in adverts by just canceling. These new ToS claim to be able to sublicence photos of my friends' children to anyone at any time. Of course, the terms don't apply since they never gave notice of the change in the ToS, and they still haven't.
Wait another twenty-thirty years, and it'll be hilarious.
Which is a lovely spec, but it's fiction.
Aye. I've often found charging a phone on a foreign computer is often as simple as booting into the BIOS password screen. The USB ports all usually deliver max power, expecting a USB boot device to be plugged in.
Just as the religious people are hoping for the Second Coming to say to the atheists. Oh Oh here is God he about to put the smack down on you. You should have lived your life based on these values, and now you gonna pay.
Technically, only a small percentage of Christians are actually hoping for the Second Coming, and for those that are, it's for different reasons than you espouse (usually a desire to see the permanent end to war/death/cyclical-suffering). I know quite a few Christians who fervently pray to forestall the Second Coming, hoping for more time to change the hearts and minds of those close to them.
Back on topic: it's a silly name, but easier to remember than Higgs-Boson, so it's here to stay.
I always make a point of noting who wrote the summary if it is kdawson I usually know the title and/or summary is going to be bullshit.
But if kdawson posted something, you can usually RTFA to find out how badly the submitter misinterpreted things. This time, there was no backup link. "TechForensics" could have said "kdawson eats babies" and kdawson would have posted it.
Then I went to browse the profiles of people I knew were on Facebook, only to find out that you have to "friend" them in order to read their profiles, which would of course subject you to an incoming torrent of high school bullshit from everyone on their friends lists.
Unless you're a recent graduate, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised about how well people change. College tends to burn the adolescence out of people, and living day-to-day can do so as well. I'll bet most of your old tormentors are loving parents who'd enjoy showing off the mini versions of themselves, and will want to see your kids. They're on FB _because_ they want to connect with people! But post the pictures on your own website. FB's ToS are evil.
Does Red Hat still name the releases after items in the game Tribes? I haven't used RH since v5.2 (shrike) If I remember correctly.
I thought Shrike was named after the Shrike from the Hyperion novels.
We dont need as much manual labor as we used to. We need more thinkers.
I contend that we need the reverse. Those magic hydro/aero-ponic buildings aren't going to get thought into existence. A few people are going to think it up, then a few thousand people are going to build them; same ratio as most of history. The U.S. already has a glut of (exclusive) thinkers, and we're groaning under the weight; all trying to out-think each other to get the few goods and services the doers provide. Other countries with higher percentages of doers seem to be well set for the future (until they do silly things like build a dam that makes a new lake that causes an earthquake).
Renraku (518261): "You have an abundance of power, water, and minerals. We can turn them into delicious food."
Soylent Green is eldavojohn (898314)!
this thread is worthless without pics.
It wasn't anything vulgar, and they were fully clothed. That said, it was incredibly incongruent with the type of matching site EH tries to be. Basically, FB threw a random picture in a dating-site ad and screwed up.
This is precisely the reason my gf and I use pseudonyms on Facebook that are linked to throw away email accounts. My friends and family in meatspace know my handle, and that's all I really want on my friend list. Facebook can still gather a lot of data about me, but it cannot be connected to my real identity.
Unless you and your GF religiously clean cookies and only access FB from coffee houses, they already know your real names via beacon and/or extrapolating what friends/family you have on FB, and what they say (they might occasionally mention your real names).
My big fear was having potential employers or clients getting a peek behind the curtain into my real world, and that just can't happen.
I wonder how many bright 18 year olds will have political or high end corporate careers derailed because of data indiscretions as a youth. I'm glad this wasn't around when I was kid because all my youthful stupidity would have been captured forever.
I'm not worried about my real world; I'm worried about a potentially fake world. FB says they have the right to alter anyone's data. Someone could post a photo that has me in it, tag my real name, and FB now modifies it for a worldwide ad: "'Culture20' eats nuclear waste! We have pictures (join Facebook now)!"
Every upload is assigned a unique new filename. There is no replacement possible. Essentially, FB was designed with this end-game in mind. It just wasn't as palatable from the start, so they had to work it in via ToS changes.
How will you know to sue unless a friend informs you that your content/likeness is being used?
You joke about this, but FB was using under-aged girls in suggestive poses in an Eharmony ad. They removed them after being informed, but it shows they have some QC issues in marketing and legal.
I'm a little sketchy on this one, can they actually do this? I mean, the users signed up under the expectation that copyright law would be honored. I don't think that they actually have a legal leg to stand on here. You can change the TOS so that new material uploaded will be owned by Facebook, but changing the TOS and expecting that to change the copyright on a lot of media retroactively? I only pray that this is what kills facebook so I can stop hearing people rant about how great it is and how I should join.
FB was already gambling that old users who no longer have accounts wouldn't know their content is being used for internal advertising, etc (since they no longer have accounts with FB), so now they're just taking the next step of saying they own you (they say they can use or relicense your _likeness_ , not just your original content, forever and ever). You read the ToS and object? Well, you had to use FB to cancel your account since there's no external email, phone, snailmail contacts, so they own your stuff now.
Can they do this? Sure they can. They'll make $X on the advertising, and every 1/1,000,000,000 times, they'll have a user notice that their content is used inappropriately. That user will sue for $Y where X>$1,000,000>Y. Facebook makes a profit.
What sucks is that FB _is_ really useful for getting in contact with old friends that you would otherwise have to hire a PI to find. What really sucks is no amount of "they can't do that" "that's illegal in my country/state/city" "I'll sue if they use my stuff" willchange their actions. FB is going to act on what they believe they can do until they are rudely informed otherwise by some government(s).
But are the control rats normal rats, gene-effected stupid rats, or gene-effected stupid rats with trained-better-memory (probably not the latter)? If they're normal rats, then they could teach things well too.
That's just the EQ DB. Imagine the one they have for all of the rootkitted machines' metadata.
Judicious threat of violence is the ultimate form of control?
Um, Guys, It's time to start the iPhone linux distro. [...] Meet you at sourceforge.
Apparently they're using github:
http://www.iphonelinux.org/
[...] anonymous, reliable, authenticatable [...]
Aren't anonymous and authenticatable mutually exclusive since authentication presupposes identification?
Can you really claim an exception for FOSS?
Given that FOSS always gets you #1, it should be concluded that you can only get #1 and #2 or #1 and #3.
Numbers 1,2,3 are from the developer's point of view. If the developer sees only 2&3 (ie, someone - maybe even the dev - pays for the development), then end user sees all 1,2,3.
Apparently you never got to play with bottle rockets. Snake Eyes, your noble sacrifice in the pursuit of science shall not be forgotten.
What I "lose" in javascript performance, I think I more than make up for in not wasting any cpu cycles on anti-virus crud.
Firefox in _Wine_, not Win. TFA was still using Linux, but was using Wine on top of Linux, with Windows version of FF.