Facebook might not be a games company right now, but the acquisition of Oculus certainly gives them a huge opportunity to venture in to that market.
Laura, welcome to Slashdot. It is great to see such a positive outlook from a first time poster.
And as far as Minecraft not being social... are you kidding me? It might be a malicious kind of social, but Persson's pull out is coming off as more of a flounce rather than an educated
Sometimes it's better to pull early than live with the consequences.
The baseband processor is a fully self-contained system with its own processors, memory and operating system. While there are devices sharing system memory to reduce BOM you start by selecting hardware with physically separate resources.
Given a sane interface design the operating systems of baseband and smartphone have full control over what it does with data transmitted by each party. Sure a satanic baseband can exploit a weakness in the smartphone... squarely the smartphones fault within the smartphones power to prevent.
MS Word has been insecure since MicroShaft decided to add VBA and tie Word into the OS. Nothing but virus attacks and worms.
Why the hell do so many people continue using shit products so damned likely to infect their system?
File -> Options -> Trust Center... First thing any sane person should do after installing word is turn off all macros and activex/vba without notification.
As long as baseband has its own isolated memory and can't physically subvert the OS I can live with trusting the baseband as much as I trust the carriers. (e.g. not at all)
I don't get it. If you are going away from satellite the signal is red shifted. If you are going toward the signal is blue shifted.
Why would there be any change in observed shift if you are going away from geo stationary satellite to the north v away to the south? What explains preferential outcome?
I could understand subtle timing differences due to ionospheric delay or polarization measurements. Ideas?
You;re half right, but EAP-TLS doesn't have a password/account component, just the cert, so you are missing an authentication factor.
Clients can ask user to provide a password to access/decrypt private key required to authenticate client to server. The "account" component is client identity (e.g. name of public key)
If you're going through the trouble of actually making sure clients are running a secure supplicant to the point of making users add a client cert and a local CA trustpoint
I've been pushing vendors for 10+ years for a usable solution and they don't seem to care.
All most people want is passwords without all the worry about brute force attacks. Users and Operators alike don't want to deal with certs at all..there is no *good* reason they should have to.
There's a big difference between "You suck at this game" and "You play like a girl," to use the most tame example I can think of.
You fight like Nali.
Not only are they hurting the player they're insulting, but any person in $category that is in the same game; as well as teaching the non-$category people that this is an acceptable way to act.
If you learn about acceptable behavior from online games or feel insulted by the gibberish spewed by random teenagers your the one with issues.
If these pings are the data the engines send to Boeing, then they are supposed to be sent every hour.So ping timings getting lomger? Since the pings are transmitted at the speed of light, over the distance the plane travels the change in ping timing would be too small to measure.
It depends on resolution of the timing data they have. I wish they would share raw data. Could have been recording clocking of sat link or some such to determine prop delay.
Also need to keep in mind sat is at geo.. length of actual light path between plane and sat depends on angle/location as well as speed/alt.
You mean that clients do not check proper certificate signature by the CA?
The main problem is not so much CA validation but lack of a global namespace.
When I type https://www.securesite.com/ into my browser the only certificates my browser accepts are the ones explicitly for www.securesite.com... certs for www.someothersite.com don't work.
With EAP authentication no such check is done automatically by default. To be secure the client must explicitly select a CA **AND** certificate identity (e.g. www.securesite.com)... otherwise you might well be presented with a valid certificate.... yet you won't know if it is one legitimately assigned to an attacker. Attackers after all can buy SSL certs the same as you or I.
In too many cases the extra work is simply asking too much of the user... some mobile clients are not even able to provide necessary configuration options to secure it.
I understand this is about recovering the PSK. This would mean that authentication using a certificate, such as EAP-TTLS is still safe. Correct?
I would say in practice "enterprise" password authentication via TLS (PEAP-* and TTLS-*) is the least secure authentication method for the simple reason virtually no client is configured properly to validate both certificate and identity.
The end result TLS is effectively subject to MITM attack for the overwhelming majority of clients...leaving squishy inner PEAP/TTLS authentication protocol (all completely worthless)
In my view EAP-TLS with mutual certificate authentication is still the most secure authentication option available.
Stanford's SRP protocol would be awesome to protect WPA passwords I believe it could be implemented with minimal changes to existing TLS stacks... simply do TLS-SRP via EAP-TLS EAP method instead of the cert auth... you get secure password authentication without the offline attack vector, or having to implement a new EAP method from scratch.
Well it sort of does. RHEL is intentionally outdated because that's what their market wants. It's stupid, I know, but there are a lot of people out there who still really want a world where software never updates so the hacked together shit that runs their business can keep running rather than doing it right.
Even if everyone was forced to upgrade to the current version of everything I doubt it would have much impact on "hacked together shit that runs their business"
What does "doing it right" even mean? Says who? You? Objective function of any business is nominally to make money. Not everyone has the same set of problems, not everyone benefits equally from application of the latest and greatest technology. At some juncture you may reach the point of diminishing returns after which platform "improvements" become a liability negatively effecting the business by introduction of unnecessary risk and expenditures.
It's stupid, I know, but there are a lot of people out there who still really want a world where software never updates so the hacked together shit that runs their business can keep running rather than doing it right.
Depressingly little has materially changed in the last decade aside from the ebb and flow of annoying fads promulgated by marketeers and the legion of lemmings following in their footsteps.
While I hope to be proven wrong I fully expect all "advancements" from here on out to be incremental and of questionable or even negative value.
It doesn't (really) matter how efficient A is compared to B.
In the real world it (really) matters how much each option costs. Given use of term "nanofabrication" and lack of available energy density likely this costs more than anyone is willing to pay into foreseeable future.
There are a fair number of geeks who are interested in this sort of thing for playing games but that's about where the consumer interest ends. The limitations are probably less in the technological feasibility than in the lack of a killer use case.
My opinion VR is the poster child of the technology having failed for being ahead of its time. Processing power and display technology simply has not existed at a quality and price anyone was willing to pay until very recently.
Even if only compelling use case is playing games that market is still huge. When I can go on new egg and purchase 1000 watt PSUs, 3-way SLI GPUs with thousands of cores each, sub MS ultra polling keyboards, 10 trillion DPI mice rated for use inch above the mouse pad, water cooling kits, motherboards adorned with skulls, low latency lan bullshit and gamer overclock shit... I find it hard to believe there can be no room for a product with a BOM consisting of mobile displays, sensors and ski goggles...all common shit enjoying massive commercial interest, R&D produced at scale.
Whether it is a series of mechanical cogs or a digital controller problem in abstract seems not so much selection of technology as it is proliferation of "nice to have" yet possibly unnecessary capabilities.. widgets which may not offer significant value after closer inspection of all risks. Is remote management really a must have or can you live without? Perhaps read-only monitoring (cutting rx lines) is a good enough compromise... perhaps not all systems need network connections, active USB ports..etc
Then we get to process questions.. can system be designed and isolated in such a way any manipulation is subject to local safety constraints which cannot be remotely bypassed or influenced/tricked?
It is problematic control people have not sufficiently cared about security in terms of product development, deployment and operation.
Also at some level operators must be trusted to not be stupid or evil.... To some extent this means knowing when to ignore the security/bureaucratic guy endlessly pulling what-ifs and CYAs out of their asses and focus on what in the bigger context is actually important.
Huh? What does that have to do with my first sentence? I was simply stating that I own devices from both markets, therefore I speak from experience, that's all. Not sure what the confusing reply is all about...
What does building PC and owning an S4 have to do with your assertion of an already competitive enough market? Makes no sense hence the cookies.
Fuck over the customer? Nobody is twisting your arm, forcing you to buy a phone or computer
I am forced to use computers and mobile phones just as I am forced to drive a car. It is not possible to elect not to do these things without suffering unacceptable consequences. Hence my desire for viable solutions free of vendor bullshit.
Sorry, but I call bullshit. Who exactly is creating that value? Not you, not me, and it doesn't magically appear out of thin air.
App vendors. They have every interest in the world in maximizing their customer base which means tearing down those silos. Likewise people need to effectively communicate and transact across devices unimpeded by vendor specific hoops and proprietary crap. Todays write 20 times run anywhere nonsense is unsustainable.
They want the advantage of the devices they make, and they don't want anyone else stealing their thunder; what is the problem with that? You seriously expect a company to spend $millions on R&D and then sell their devices, at cost, as a neutral platform?
I expect hardware vendors to make great innovative hardware and sell it for what market is willing to accept. I don't expect vendors to tell me what operating system I can or can not run or otherwise impose artificial limits on what I can or can't do with the hardware once it has been sold. I vote with my dollar.
Even PCs aren't really that modular. For the average consumer/end-user, the alternatives to Windows generally are, for the most part, Linux and Mac.
I can choose from any of a dozen PSU vendors, DRAM vendors, form factors, a few processor, GPU vendors, persistent storage vendors, plug all manner of expansion hardware into any number of standardized interfaces, dozens of motherboard vendors, cooling solutions, keyboards, displays, mice, printers, audio, network. I am free to run any operating system that will run without artificial limits.. Windows, Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, ESX, Android, ReactOS, DOS, OS/2...ad nauseam.
In the tablet and mobile handset spaces too often hardware is locked down to where it is not possible to install other operating systems without having to exploit system defects. Windows phone loader is intentionally locked down to prevent execution of anything except windows and carriers are increasingly enforcing the same restrictions on their modified android builds.
I don't see how you can compare those two. They have nothing in common. Gas and cookies are consumables that take a small amount of effort to make. They aren't that expensive, but
The point is anyone's gasoline works in my vehicle in the same way anyone's software should work on my computer.
I own a PC I built myself that is running Windows 7, and I have a Samsung Galaxy S4 running an Android 4.2 custom ROM, and I think the market is already competitive enough.
Yea and my oven dispenses delicious chocolate chip cookies if you put the right ingredients inside of it and open the door at just the right time.
I think it is unfair to say "Now we want you to design your hardware to be able to run your competitor's OS." That is going too far.
As a consumer I am sick of the silos, walled gardens and license to fuck over the customer that comes with each vendors try at "ecosystem lockin"
Reality is there is too much value bottled up for the current state of affairs to be sustainable over the long haul. Both hardware and software will become more modular like PCs in the future. Prior technical excuses of severely limited room and processor space has not been true for a number of years and any added costs in generalizing software and hardware interfaces will quickly pay dividends as the barrier to entry is reduced.
Because there are different companies that have created separate, yet popular ways of doing things. Because of this separateness, your knowledge of both OSes is valuable because you can do business with either.
Operating systems are commodities like gas and cookies. The sooner we all get to treating them that way the better off we all are.
But I don't blame the companies for not wanting hardware that makes it as easy as falling off a log. This is actually a catch 22; did you consider that the very device you want to make your job easier is the same device that can make your job obsolete?
Relax, you can always find work in Oregon and New Jersey working the pumps.
When a company is competitive, we get functional devices and they get money and market share. Having a device that can dual boot would be even more functional for the end user, but potentially suicidal for the company.
It really isn't that hard a concept. If you want to stay in business you provide value customers are willing to pay for. The second you have nothing to offer is the second you die.
Modularization is happening whether OS vendors like it or not. I invite those opposed to ignore it.
Must be missing something... I can't imagine how one could reasonably intend to infect millions of machines and not expect their stash of 0-days to be discovered and plugged in short order.. unless NSA plans to social engineer all of their victims to run the "fre3 v1agra" installer seems like a great way for NSA to shoot itself in the foot.
Feinstein's speech is not about scoring points with a cheap ploy. Feinstein, in this instance, is doing her job in exposing a crime being
She only does the job when it effects her personally and her power. Does the office monkey who only does any work while the boss is watching deserve a positive review? I believe the CIAs actions were wrong. My only disagreement is with assigning credit to Feinstein for not sleeping while the boss is looking her way.
I take it you hate this "moron" so much, that you're more than happy to ignore the treason being committed by the executive branch?
Each time without exception someone has used the words "I take it" to describe a position I have never asserted they get it wrong.
No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.
Attacking people is no way to win an argument yet it communicates a useful function for the purpose of filtering out noise.
While a crackpot might on occasion say something true is it really worth your time to wade through all of their garbage to scrape a few grains of sanity from the bottom of the pan?
If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance
She is like all of the other power hungry whackos... she does not care unless it effects her personally...I'm not going to applaud her for that.
Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?
The problem with just supporting any statement from anyone who says anything you want to hear is that doing so negatively effects your credibility.
What if Hitler, Uncle Stalin or Ahmadinejad were to give a speech about the importance of human rights? What do you think would happen to the credibility of the human rights advocate who decides to go ahead and quote it while omitting the emoticon?
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook might not be a games company right now, but the acquisition of Oculus certainly gives them a huge opportunity to venture in to that market.
Laura, welcome to Slashdot. It is great to see such a positive outlook from a first time poster.
And as far as Minecraft not being social... are you kidding me? It might be a malicious kind of social, but Persson's pull out is coming off as more of a flounce rather than an educated
Sometimes it's better to pull early than live with the consequences.
How can you possibly verify this?
The baseband processor is a fully self-contained system with its own processors, memory and operating system. While there are devices sharing system memory to reduce BOM you start by selecting hardware with physically separate resources.
Given a sane interface design the operating systems of baseband and smartphone have full control over what it does with data transmitted by each party. Sure a satanic baseband can exploit a weakness in the smartphone ... squarely the smartphones fault within the smartphones power to prevent.
Every time something new comes along which does not suck some rich asshole swoops in at the last minute and turns it all to total shit.
Can't wait for version 3 of the developer kit with "cloud" and "facebook" ads and stalking built in.
"WaffleMonster just got his head chopped off in a virtual guillotine"
"WaffleMonster rode the roller-coaster-of-terror and screamed like a little girl"
MS Word has been insecure since MicroShaft decided to add VBA and tie Word into the OS. Nothing but virus attacks and worms.
Why the hell do so many people continue using shit products so damned likely to infect their system?
File -> Options -> Trust Center ... First thing any sane person should do after installing word is turn off all macros and activex/vba without notification.
As long as baseband has its own isolated memory and can't physically subvert the OS I can live with trusting the baseband as much as I trust the carriers. (e.g. not at all)
I don't get it. If you are going away from satellite the signal is red shifted. If you are going toward the signal is blue shifted.
Why would there be any change in observed shift if you are going away from geo stationary satellite to the north v away to the south? What explains preferential outcome?
I could understand subtle timing differences due to ionospheric delay or polarization measurements. Ideas?
You;re half right, but EAP-TLS doesn't have a password/account component, just the cert, so you are missing an authentication factor.
Clients can ask user to provide a password to access/decrypt private key required to authenticate client to server. The "account" component is client identity (e.g. name of public key)
If you're going through the trouble of actually making sure clients are running a secure supplicant to the point of making users add a client cert and a local CA trustpoint
I've been pushing vendors for 10+ years for a usable solution and they don't seem to care.
All most people want is passwords without all the worry about brute force attacks. Users and Operators alike don't want to deal with certs at all ..there is no *good* reason they should have to.
There's a big difference between "You suck at this game" and "You play like a girl," to use the most tame example I can think of.
You fight like Nali.
Not only are they hurting the player they're insulting, but any person in $category that is in the same game; as well as teaching the non-$category people that this is an acceptable way to act.
If you learn about acceptable behavior from online games or feel insulted by the gibberish spewed by random teenagers your the one with issues.
If these pings are the data the engines send to Boeing, then they are supposed to be sent every hour.So ping timings getting lomger? Since the pings are transmitted at the speed of light, over the distance the plane travels the change in ping timing would be too small to measure.
It depends on resolution of the timing data they have. I wish they would share raw data. Could have been recording clocking of sat link or some such to determine prop delay.
Also need to keep in mind sat is at geo.. length of actual light path between plane and sat depends on angle/location as well as speed/alt.
You mean that clients do not check proper certificate signature by the CA?
The main problem is not so much CA validation but lack of a global namespace.
When I type https://www.securesite.com/ into my browser the only certificates my browser accepts are the ones explicitly for www.securesite.com... certs for www.someothersite.com don't work.
With EAP authentication no such check is done automatically by default. To be secure the client must explicitly select a CA **AND** certificate identity (e.g. www.securesite.com) ... otherwise you might well be presented with a valid certificate.... yet you won't know if it is one legitimately assigned to an attacker. Attackers after all can buy SSL certs the same as you or I.
In too many cases the extra work is simply asking too much of the user... some mobile clients are not even able to provide necessary configuration options to secure it.
I understand this is about recovering the PSK. This would mean that authentication using a certificate, such as EAP-TTLS is still safe. Correct?
I would say in practice "enterprise" password authentication via TLS (PEAP-* and TTLS-*) is the least secure authentication method for the simple reason virtually no client is configured properly to validate both certificate and identity.
The end result TLS is effectively subject to MITM attack for the overwhelming majority of clients...leaving squishy inner PEAP/TTLS authentication protocol (all completely worthless)
In my view EAP-TLS with mutual certificate authentication is still the most secure authentication option available.
Stanford's SRP protocol would be awesome to protect WPA passwords I believe it could be implemented with minimal changes to existing TLS stacks ... simply do TLS-SRP via EAP-TLS EAP method instead of the cert auth ... you get secure password authentication without the offline attack vector, or having to implement a new EAP method from scratch.
If your regime is that sensitive to 140 characters perhaps the problem is not twitter?
If you write in Turkish is it more like 70 characters after Unicode conversion or does everyone get 140 characters?
Well it sort of does. RHEL is intentionally outdated because that's what their market wants. It's stupid, I know, but there are a lot of people out there who still really want a world where software never updates so the hacked together shit that runs their business can keep running rather than doing it right.
Even if everyone was forced to upgrade to the current version of everything I doubt it would have much impact on "hacked together shit that runs their business"
What does "doing it right" even mean? Says who? You? Objective function of any business is nominally to make money. Not everyone has the same set of problems, not everyone benefits equally from application of the latest and greatest technology. At some juncture you may reach the point of diminishing returns after which platform "improvements" become a liability negatively effecting the business by introduction of unnecessary risk and expenditures.
It's stupid, I know, but there are a lot of people out there who still really want a world where software never updates so the hacked together shit that runs their business can keep running rather than doing it right.
Depressingly little has materially changed in the last decade aside from the ebb and flow of annoying fads promulgated by marketeers and the legion of lemmings following in their footsteps.
While I hope to be proven wrong I fully expect all "advancements" from here on out to be incremental and of questionable or even negative value.
It doesn't (really) matter how efficient A is compared to B.
In the real world it (really) matters how much each option costs. Given use of term "nanofabrication" and lack of available energy density likely this costs more than anyone is willing to pay into foreseeable future.
There are a fair number of geeks who are interested in this sort of thing for playing games but that's about where the consumer interest ends. The limitations are probably less in the technological feasibility than in the lack of a killer use case.
My opinion VR is the poster child of the technology having failed for being ahead of its time. Processing power and display technology simply has not existed at a quality and price anyone was willing to pay until very recently.
Even if only compelling use case is playing games that market is still huge. When I can go on new egg and purchase 1000 watt PSUs, 3-way SLI GPUs with thousands of cores each, sub MS ultra polling keyboards, 10 trillion DPI mice rated for use inch above the mouse pad, water cooling kits, motherboards adorned with skulls, low latency lan bullshit and gamer overclock shit... I find it hard to believe there can be no room for a product with a BOM consisting of mobile displays, sensors and ski goggles...all common shit enjoying massive commercial interest, R&D produced at scale.
Whether it is a series of mechanical cogs or a digital controller problem in abstract seems not so much selection of technology as it is proliferation of "nice to have" yet possibly unnecessary capabilities.. widgets which may not offer significant value after closer inspection of all risks. Is remote management really a must have or can you live without? Perhaps read-only monitoring (cutting rx lines) is a good enough compromise... perhaps not all systems need network connections, active USB ports..etc
Then we get to process questions.. can system be designed and isolated in such a way any manipulation is subject to local safety constraints which cannot be remotely bypassed or influenced/tricked?
It is problematic control people have not sufficiently cared about security in terms of product development, deployment and operation.
Also at some level operators must be trusted to not be stupid or evil.... To some extent this means knowing when to ignore the security/bureaucratic guy endlessly pulling what-ifs and CYAs out of their asses and focus on what in the bigger context is actually important.
If something were to go wrong you'd know it..
Huh? What does that have to do with my first sentence? I was simply stating that I own devices from both markets, therefore I speak from experience, that's all. Not sure what the confusing reply is all about...
What does building PC and owning an S4 have to do with your assertion of an already competitive enough market? Makes no sense hence the cookies.
Fuck over the customer? Nobody is twisting your arm, forcing you to buy a phone or computer
I am forced to use computers and mobile phones just as I am forced to drive a car. It is not possible to elect not to do these things without suffering unacceptable consequences. Hence my desire for viable solutions free of vendor bullshit.
Sorry, but I call bullshit. Who exactly is creating that value? Not you, not me, and it doesn't magically appear out of thin air.
App vendors. They have every interest in the world in maximizing their customer base which means tearing down those silos. Likewise people need to effectively communicate and transact across devices unimpeded by vendor specific hoops and proprietary crap. Todays write 20 times run anywhere nonsense is unsustainable.
They want the advantage of the devices they make, and they don't want anyone else stealing their thunder; what is the problem with that? You seriously expect a company to spend $millions on R&D and then sell their devices, at cost, as a neutral platform?
I expect hardware vendors to make great innovative hardware and sell it for what market is willing to accept. I don't expect vendors to tell me what operating system I can or can not run or otherwise impose artificial limits on what I can or can't do with the hardware once it has been sold. I vote with my dollar.
Even PCs aren't really that modular. For the average consumer/end-user, the alternatives to Windows generally are, for the most part, Linux and Mac.
I can choose from any of a dozen PSU vendors, DRAM vendors, form factors, a few processor, GPU vendors, persistent storage vendors, plug all manner of expansion hardware into any number of standardized interfaces, dozens of motherboard vendors, cooling solutions, keyboards, displays, mice, printers, audio, network. I am free to run any operating system that will run without artificial limits.. Windows, Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, ESX, Android, ReactOS, DOS, OS/2...ad nauseam.
In the tablet and mobile handset spaces too often hardware is locked down to where it is not possible to install other operating systems without having to exploit system defects. Windows phone loader is intentionally locked down to prevent execution of anything except windows and carriers are increasingly enforcing the same restrictions on their modified android builds.
I don't see how you can compare those two. They have nothing in common. Gas and cookies are consumables that take a small amount of effort to make. They aren't that expensive, but
The point is anyone's gasoline works in my vehicle in the same way anyone's software should work on my computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
is the essence of what makes a commodity a commodity.
Really? You just being silly or what?
Underlying point is no joke. Limiting value to consumer for sake of employment is indefensible Malthusian dogma.
I own a PC I built myself that is running Windows 7, and I have a Samsung Galaxy S4 running an Android 4.2 custom ROM, and I think the market is already competitive enough.
Yea and my oven dispenses delicious chocolate chip cookies if you put the right ingredients inside of it and open the door at just the right time.
I think it is unfair to say "Now we want you to design your hardware to be able to run your competitor's OS." That is going too far.
As a consumer I am sick of the silos, walled gardens and license to fuck over the customer that comes with each vendors try at "ecosystem lockin"
Reality is there is too much value bottled up for the current state of affairs to be sustainable over the long haul. Both hardware and software will become more modular like PCs in the future. Prior technical excuses of severely limited room and processor space has not been true for a number of years and any added costs in generalizing software and hardware interfaces will quickly pay dividends as the barrier to entry is reduced.
Because there are different companies that have created separate, yet popular ways of doing things. Because of this separateness, your knowledge of both OSes is valuable because you can do business with either.
Operating systems are commodities like gas and cookies. The sooner we all get to treating them that way the better off we all are.
But I don't blame the companies for not wanting hardware that makes it as easy as falling off a log. This is actually a catch 22; did you consider that the very device you want to make your job easier is the same device that can make your job obsolete?
Relax, you can always find work in Oregon and New Jersey working the pumps.
When a company is competitive, we get functional devices and they get money and market share. Having a device that can dual boot would be even more functional for the end user, but potentially suicidal for the company.
It really isn't that hard a concept. If you want to stay in business you provide value customers are willing to pay for. The second you have nothing to offer is the second you die.
Modularization is happening whether OS vendors like it or not. I invite those opposed to ignore it.
Begins with fucking over your customers for selfish reasons.
Hope this works better than audio recordings abused to provide inaccurate pretexts for all kinds of unnecessary unpleasantries.
When will this transfer of wealth from young to old stop?
When you get old.
Must be missing something... I can't imagine how one could reasonably intend to infect millions of machines and not expect their stash of 0-days to be discovered and plugged in short order.. unless NSA plans to social engineer all of their victims to run the "fre3 v1agra" installer seems like a great way for NSA to shoot itself in the foot.
Feinstein's speech is not about scoring points with a cheap ploy. Feinstein, in this instance, is doing her job in exposing a crime being
She only does the job when it effects her personally and her power. Does the office monkey who only does any work while the boss is watching deserve a positive review? I believe the CIAs actions were wrong. My only disagreement is with assigning credit to Feinstein for not sleeping while the boss is looking her way.
I take it you hate this "moron" so much, that you're more than happy to ignore the treason being committed by the executive branch?
Each time without exception someone has used the words "I take it" to describe a position I have never asserted they get it wrong.
No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.
Attacking people is no way to win an argument yet it communicates a useful function for the purpose of filtering out noise.
While a crackpot might on occasion say something true is it really worth your time to wade through all of their garbage to scrape a few grains of sanity from the bottom of the pan?
If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance
She is like all of the other power hungry whackos ... she does not care unless it effects her personally...I'm not going to applaud her for that.
Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?
The problem with just supporting any statement from anyone who says anything you want to hear is that doing so negatively effects your credibility.
What if Hitler, Uncle Stalin or Ahmadinejad were to give a speech about the importance of human rights? What do you think would happen to the credibility of the human rights advocate who decides to go ahead and quote it while omitting the emoticon?