The feature list for this phone is very impressive but no user replacable battery no sale. More important than all the toys and gadgets the device must actually be capable of performing its primary function. Not allowing battery swapping or replacement is a deal breaker.
If I wanted to be lectured about how up is down and not having standard features such as SD cards and replacable batteries is actually a "good" thing I would have already purchased an iPhone.
My smashbot designed to shred anything with an Apple insignia has rights too. Ye best not infringe if ye know whats good for yarrr..gg....hiccup..
What surprises me is how shallow both articles are... It has nothing to do with machine intelligence, building a real "data" or any such thing.
It is not the capabilities of the machine simply the role of it. Seems quite shallow and arbitrary to me. It reads more like a crappy attempt to unecessarily restrict rights and freedoms than accomplishing anything beneficial to society.
Yes for all cases like DNS Changer the best thing to do is take any C&C systems offline and make no attempt to mitigate any side effects. LEA caused countless thousands to go on about their daily activities with compromised systems and not know about it. Shutting off the damn C&C would have immediatly caused these people to realize they were hacked or hire someone to determine the same. Instead continuing to run the DNS service hid this fact potentially unecessarily endangering people with compromised systems.
Now if the question is should you deliberatly disconnect someone from the Internet if you don't like or suspect the packets they are sending the answer is hell no.
It is hard to see how anything having to do with neutrinos could be effected by whatever local noon is in a lab in Isreal. Look at the time of day correlations.. If I did this in a lab in the US should I expect the same time of day results? If so how would such results square with the earth being transparent to neutrinos? Would this not be evidence against neutrinos as a cause?
Separatly it is hard to see how the paper gets away with voltage and temperature measurements which correlate so closely with the variation in observed instrument readings while not discussing any procedures to either characterize the implictaions of the variations on the actual measurement equipment.
I mean is it really that hard to regulate a low voltage power supply or control the temperature in a room?
sigh* no...Karma determines what happens to you in the next life. It has zippo to do with this life. In this life you accumulate karma (or don't, that's why priests sit on mountaintops and do nothing, to avoid karma) and it determines what you become after your death.
I've been wondering if I were to post something offensive or trollish as anonymous coward will it cost me karma? On slashdot? In my next life? Are the systems integrated? What if I posted the same garbage without ticking the Post Anonymously button? Would this have a different effect on my next life?
Are there cool things you can be that require you to have less than excellent karma to qualify for?
For example if I wanted to be a four headed fire breathing dragon and my (formerly) excellent karma meant I would become a saint or a dolphin or something stupid like that could I mount a trolling campaign just before my death to burn off some Karma?
Every huge technology company (Or in googles case advertising company) wants total control over all your gear and your data.
Being honest and telling everyone this is actually your plan or that this model somehow represents the future and you will like it is an interesting strategy however the answer is still "no".
This is for googles own good too. The more we stand by and help google corrupt its own soul the worse off everyone including google is in the long run.
Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. YouÃ(TM)ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise IÃ(TM)m blowing the airport sky high!!
I can't believe UK actually has an airport named "Robin Hood"... Did it get its name by hiring TSA bag checkers who takith from the rich and givith to themselves?
This kind of thing has been going on for a long time in many areas including the US you can't joke about anything anymore without someone somewhere thinking it is their duty to take you seriously context be damned. Well the text said you are going to kill yourself or someone else or blow something up so we HAVE to take you seriously because some nut job somewhere might have actually meant what they say.
This OMG terror1st under every bed mentality soo many people appear to be afflicted with is nothing more than a reflection of their own paranoia and cowardice. Its discusting.
You're also trying to argue both sides here, by saying that browsers need to deal in the real world, but at the same time they should make assumptions that could only be valid if every browser instantly followed specifications as they were released.
I'm not concerned about the past. I tested every current browser I could find YEARS ago and they all worked as expected.
Old versions of browsers are subject to a wide array of exploits dwelling on them is fruitless.
In the real world, the header was redefined,
The purpose of the referer field has always been constant as far as I understand it.
redefinition caused years later as developers "missed spots" when securing it. In the real world, it's easier to create an entirely new header that is supposed to be secure from the beginning
Again I don't think referer has changed. New features were added to the platform which interfered with previous security assumptions. People later fixed their mistakes after realizing the error of their ways.
It's terrible security practice all around, and this should be obvious to anyone who's actually done development.
I personally think that we could do one better by not relying on any sort of referrer mechanism, but at the very least, saying the way it was done is the best way in light of the history of the issue is silly.
I am only concerned with the present and future. The "best" way is useless to me if it does not exist or I can't take advantage of it in the present.
Right now the only two options other than checking referer I have any knowledge of are:
1. Not using cookies at all 2. Using different domains for the cookies
Neither option is acceptable and wishing things were different does me no good in the present.
Googles domain concept is particularly useless when access to user uploaded content is subject to authentication.
All in all, basing security on a header that was never secure is a dumb idea. Instead of redefining an old header, make a new one. This is security we're talking about, not opening a Word 97 document on Word 2008. If it's not secure, it should break, it shouldn't make a best effort.
Please see the specification which explicitly exempts Referer and a host of other fields in request from being user changable.
All in all, basing security on a header that was never secure is a dumb idea.
The browser is expected to moderate certain activity protecting the end user from an "anything goes" scripting environment.
There were security bugs that got fixed but I don't understand the assertion being made about this field never being secure. The specifications for xmlhttprequest seems pretty clear to me on the intent to protect this field.
If it's not secure, it should break, it shouldn't make a best effort.
You seem to be making a philosophical or political argument. While I respect your opinion no specification is perfect and people often don't have the luxury of always doing what "sounds good" on paper.
I invite anyone to provide an objective reason or reference to the same why this would not work in the "real world".
mean, I still think it's not a good idea, and that same google shows that there are many ways around it, and other headers don't share the same protection so trusting them is a bad habit to get into, but it looks like it would take more than the two minutes I was willing to spend. Google around. It may not be trivial anymore, but it's still very possible.
I would REALLY like to know how it is still possible to forge a referer field from a browser request. There are lots of talking heads on the Internet who more or less assume what many here have in this regard.
I know how to clear the referer field but having previously spent dozens of hours researching this with no solution that does not involve ancient bugs or signaling outside the browsers session context.
Any specific pointers or implementations rather than unspecific references to talking heads assuming you are a foolish moron for asking would be very much appreciated.
Funny they list facebook, twitter, online photo sharing, online banking and shopping as "the cloud". It would be interesting to hear from TFA what on the Internet does not count as "the cloud" ?
Had noticed TFA is making fun of people who think stormy weather can "interfere with the functionality of the cloud" when just a few weeks ago an electrical storm triggered a massive outage in the Amazon "cloud".
For icing on my cloud cake we have marketeers commenting about how everyone has a favorable view of the cloud when the only thing that seems clear is too many people including the author does not seem to have a coherent grasp of what it is their talking about.
Listening to these people they are all assuming there is some sort of analouge to physical reality to be had when no such thing exists.
"Resources" are meaningless. Your advasary does not need aircraft carriers, subs and tanks. A dialup modem is just as capable of bringing down power grids as is a well connected multi-gigabit pipe at every IXP.
One smart, board or lucky person located anywhere can cause you just as much grief as an army of lesser such people.
Denial of capabilities means nothing when those capabilities have already been used against you and you just don't know it yet. In fact any useless attempt to disrupt networks or capabilities could very well trigger a failsafe response. The only way to deny capabilities is to help your side secure their shit.
"Mapping of networks" Oh yea cause if you know where an attack is coming from you can turn it off and that will fix everything... knowledge of network topology is meaningless.
"Access to cyberspace domain, information, networks, systems, or devices"
Its called hacking. If you ask nicely a three letter agency might share their cache of 0-days with you...but my guess they will refuse to waste their precious capability on "cyber war" bullshit.
"Denial of service on cyberspace resources, current/future operating systems, and network devices"...
All you need is a low orbit ion cannon, a few rofolcopters on your lolz craft carriers and nobody will mess with you... Denial of service is more military thinking with no useful analouge to any useful property of "cyberspace".
"Data manipulation" Notepad..
"Ability to control cyberspace effects at specified times and places"
As if time and space mean anything in cyberspace.
"Situational awareness capabilities that give an operator near real-time effectiveness feedback in a form that is readily observed by the operator."
These are humans you are at war with. There is no neat satellite imagry detailing the effect of delivered ordinance, to think otherwise is dangerous self dellusion.
"Technologies/concepts for developing and assessing cyberspace capabilities while disconnected from the operational cyberspace domain (the Internet or communication networks) including IO modeling, simulation, and capability, and operational and performance assessments."
More military resource bullshit having no actual analouge to "cyberspace"
"Situational awareness capabilities that give an operator near real-time effectiveness feedback in a form that is readily observed by the operator."
See RFC 3514.
"Technologies/concepts for developing capabilities to assess and visualize non-kinetic cyberspace domain effects."
They were attacking us so we broke the Internet and therefore we won because nobody can attack us anymore.
"Cyberspace technologies/capabilities employing unique characteristics resulting in the adversary entering conflicts in a degraded state"
More useless military thinking... you assume the adversary has anything to loose or is capable of being "degraded"...
Unless the airforce also has a real working "Stealth" quantum computer they are not telling anyone about its time to wake up and get real.
Where is the actual text of the draft? The summary says very little and the source document is nowhere to be found.
Regarding "resistance to international governance of the Internet ".. did not the entire house just vote 414 to zilch against the ITU? No politician of any party will vote to scede power to others. This was never a serious issue so it does not count.
The protection of personal data thing sounds too good to be true. If anything like it passes NSLs would become unconstitutional because they depend on the third party doctrine to sidestep the 4th amendment...with that gone the patriot act is effectivly SOL.
The amount of information leakage from windows and applications is quite alarming.
BROWSER: In particular the change to combined URL+search bar in IE9 has a particularly nasty behavior. ctrl+e is supposed to perform a search with your current search provider so if I type ctrl+e then 'test' it sends that to google or whatever.
ctrl+l is supposed to allow the user to enter a URL not search yet the only difference is it attempts to lookup/connect and if that fails assumes it is a search term so if you put in a hostname for a local intranet site even if it contains query parameters with private information that gets leaked to your search provider! It seems quite intentionally designed to cause information leakage.
The only option I know to change this turns off the search feature completely.
Host of other browser things for phishing/smartscreen, certificate recovation, scanning..etc are obvious in their need to send information and can be toggled thru software options.
OFFICE: The other day I was in office and every time I tried to cut and paste something I inadvertently was triggering the translation feature this was sending portions of my document to Microsoft to be translated simply by highlighting text... The way it was done it is so much of an automated gesture thing it was virtually impossible for me to navigate thru the document without accidently tripping it off even after trying not to. I turned off all translations - it was driving me nuts.
The networking location awareness service continually leaks data to Microsoft and whenever you connect to a network the only way to change this is via registry hacks.
I'm not against the existance of features which require coordination over a network or central databases to work however it must be made clear via central configuration to the user what is happening and in all cases they must have the option to disable any functionality that calls home either locally or by group policy.
Disabling these features must not unecessarily punish the user by unecessarily crippling a subsystem in retaliation.
really time for computer science to grow up and join the rest of the pack. If a mechanical engineer designs a bridge that collapses under normal load, that engineer can be held PERSONALLY responsible for breach of duty
Is "Normal load" really the question TFA is posing?
Unless you are asserting the bridge should be able to withstand attack by any and all living thinking advasaries or the designer is to be held responsible your analogy would seem to fall short.
We NEED this responsibility, and so does the public we serve.
Are you sure? Did you ask them? How much more are they willing to pay for code that is guaranteed to repell all human advasaries?
They're growing tired of the mess that exists right now. Apple is trying to do better on this front but really it needs to go much futher, and the whole field needs to improve. We've had many decades of ad-hoc cowboy-coders.
Most malware today is installed by tricking users into doing something stupid. Even if all code had no expliotable defects it is foolish and unrealistic to assume this would appreciably change a damn thing. The central problem is not the software it is the USER.
Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt
What should the consequences be? Satire is protected speech in the US the last I checked.
People are uncomfortable and scared of all kinds of things does irrational fear give them the right to impune the rights of others? One big happy vigilante mob rule family?
If I don't like chinese people I'll just hang a big ole sign outside my chinese noodle shop saying no chinese allowed because they "scare" me.
Lots of rural access is served by small ISPs as the big guys won't touch those markets with a 10ft pole. None of these outfits have full time legal/process teams. Most have never even heard of FCC form 477 or simply incapable or unwilling to fill it out. The FCC for the most part lacks the will to enforce/care. Virtually all of the FCC data is coming from mid-sized to large providers only.
The FCCs definitions and inconsistancies still crack me up.
On pg 7 "In this report, we assess our nationâ(TM)s progress to date using the existing speed benchmark of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps."
Yet the map and summary are drawing conclusions based on 3mbit/768kbps. Why?
Yet still if you read the text of 477 "broadband" is considered to be "transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction"
Some consistancy would be nice rather than playing games with the word "broadband" to be assured a desired outcome in a given context.
Manual window management. It's 2012, if computers can drive cars, why do I still have to manually move windows around, resize them, alt-tab between overlapping windows, accidentally screw things up due to keyboard focus, etc. etc?
Yes, I know nerds hate change. But it's time for GUIs to move on, precisely because manual window management is counterproductive for almost every task. Maybe Metro isn't perfect, but you can't blame MS for trying
In order to address the problem of managing several applications displayed on screen at once a new system is designed which does not allow any more than two apps to appear on screen at once and you say at least Microsoft is trying.
I guess so..I know it is hard draging windows and resizing them the way you want... I know the computer should be expected to read your mind..etc...
I just think perhaps you might not be seeing the larger truth in all of this. If you don't want to be burdoned with straining yourself why not just get rid of your computer alltogether? Then you don't have to worry about it breaking or loosing any of your data, taking up space or costing you any money.. This just seems like such a great idea to me.
Any news site not wanting a search engine linking to them need no legislation. All they need to do is create a file called robots.txt in the root folder of their site with the following content:
User-agent: * Disallow: /
This will ensure said news site is never seen by anyone. The choice is yours and under your full control.
It very much is the way things are going to be done and it turns out, people like it. The
Why would they like it? Why would anyone who wouldn't upgrade their machines care that they had that option? How would having it matter to make someone "like it"?
How many iPhone users like the fact they can't swap out their battery like every other normal phone in existance? Oh yea...right they all do...I forgot about that reality distortion field.
experiment was first tried with the MacBook Air and people bought it without hesitation. Had the Air been a flop this wouldn't be happening.
How do you know?
Or put another way, I've never met someone that "upgraded" their laptop after 2 years anyway. They hand it down or put it to work in the corner of the room, but they aren't upgraded.
My notebook is 4 years old and I have "upgraded" memory and disks multiple times. It has a removable drive bay that can accomodate an extra battery or a second hard disk I use for data redundancy. High capacity disks did not exist when I origionally purchased my notebook.
Whether it is a Dell, Mac, or Thinkpad. I put more ram in mine after 3, but I think I"m by far the exception. The most upgrades laptops probably ever received was in that period of time when you could replace the old hdd with ssd and get a huge bump. Now we're falling out of that even as laptops come stock with ssd.
I'm sure Apple or whoever can get away with this shit within their market segment. What I don't see is where the value to the user in this is?
If you can't even change the hard drive yourself or it costs a lot more since you are no longer able to "hire" the neighborhood tech geek to help you... how does this add value or help you or anyone else in any way?
I'm sure companies like Apple would love to lock down everything as much as possible and train their users to pay them continuously for shit and repairs they really don't need or could have done themselves.
I'm sure media and content companies would like nothing better than to lock down general purpose systems so that they can't be used to do anything they find objectionable too..
All I can do is vote against waste, tyranny and selfish extraction of value with my dollar. I recommend everyone else follow suite.
What the Prop. 37 folks want is for the people who don't currently care about GMO one way or the other to see a label and think "Hmm, there's a label on this about it being genetically modified. That must mean it's something bad."
I care about how much trans fat is in the food I eat yet that information is denied to me. All the labels on all food says 0 grams due to loopholes you can drive a truck thru thanks to ag lobbies having their way with our elected representitives. I have to look for the words "partially hydrogenated" and take a wild guess whether the value is closer to.49g or.01g per totally arbitrary "serving".
Your argument reminds me of striping the labels from medicines and replacing them with generic statements detailing their intended function and thinking people won't care or miss the information. Guess what they would. I fail to see why food should be any different. I should have the right to know if I'm getting a tylenol or a baer or a generic version of the same.
If my corn has DNA spliced in from turtles and clownfish I WANT to know that. I want to make my own decisions before beta testing a new infallible creation of man on my family. I don't care who is supposedly inconvienced with labeling requirements in the process.
To say that I have GMO-free choices misses the point entirely. I'm not at all against GMO. I want to know specifically what strain I'm getting GMO or not.
Slashdot Mirror
The feature list for this phone is very impressive but no user replacable battery no sale. More important than all the toys and gadgets the device must actually be capable of performing its primary function. Not allowing battery swapping or replacement is a deal breaker.
If I wanted to be lectured about how up is down and not having standard features such as SD cards and replacable batteries is actually a "good" thing I would have already purchased an iPhone.
My smashbot designed to shred anything with an Apple insignia has rights too. Ye best not infringe if ye know whats good for yarrr..gg....hiccup..
What surprises me is how shallow both articles are... It has nothing to do with machine intelligence, building a real "data" or any such thing.
It is not the capabilities of the machine simply the role of it. Seems quite shallow and arbitrary to me. It reads more like a crappy attempt to unecessarily restrict rights and freedoms than accomplishing anything beneficial to society.
So is quarantining people infected with Ebola infringing on their free speech then?
It is when you claim they have Ebola just to shut them up.
Yes for all cases like DNS Changer the best thing to do is take any C&C systems offline and make no attempt to mitigate any side effects. LEA caused countless thousands to go on about their daily activities with compromised systems and not know about it. Shutting off the damn C&C would have immediatly caused these people to realize they were hacked or hire someone to determine the same. Instead continuing to run the DNS service hid this fact potentially unecessarily endangering people with compromised systems.
Now if the question is should you deliberatly disconnect someone from the Internet if you don't like or suspect the packets they are sending the answer is hell no.
It is hard to see how anything having to do with neutrinos could be effected by whatever local noon is in a lab in Isreal. Look at the time of day correlations.. If I did this in a lab in the US should I expect the same time of day results? If so how would such results square with the earth being transparent to neutrinos? Would this not be evidence against neutrinos as a cause?
Separatly it is hard to see how the paper gets away with voltage and temperature measurements which correlate so closely with the variation in observed instrument readings while not discussing any procedures to either characterize the implictaions of the variations on the actual measurement equipment.
I mean is it really that hard to regulate a low voltage power supply or control the temperature in a room?
sigh* no...Karma determines what happens to you in the next life. It has zippo to do with this life. In this life you accumulate karma (or don't, that's why priests sit on mountaintops and do nothing, to avoid karma) and it determines what you become after your death.
I've been wondering if I were to post something offensive or trollish as anonymous coward will it cost me karma? On slashdot? In my next life? Are the systems integrated? What if I posted the same garbage without ticking the Post Anonymously button? Would this have a different effect on my next life?
Are there cool things you can be that require you to have less than excellent karma to qualify for?
For example if I wanted to be a four headed fire breathing dragon and my (formerly) excellent karma meant I would become a saint or a dolphin or something stupid like that could I mount a trolling campaign just before my death to burn off some Karma?
Every huge technology company (Or in googles case advertising company) wants total control over all your gear and your data.
Being honest and telling everyone this is actually your plan or that this model somehow represents the future and you will like it is an interesting strategy however the answer is still "no".
This is for googles own good too. The more we stand by and help google corrupt its own soul the worse off everyone including google is in the long run.
Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. YouÃ(TM)ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise IÃ(TM)m blowing the airport sky high!!
I can't believe UK actually has an airport named "Robin Hood" ... Did it get its name by hiring TSA bag checkers who takith from the rich and givith to themselves?
This kind of thing has been going on for a long time in many areas including the US you can't joke about anything anymore without someone somewhere thinking it is their duty to take you seriously context be damned. Well the text said you are going to kill yourself or someone else or blow something up so we HAVE to take you seriously because some nut job somewhere might have actually meant what they say.
This OMG terror1st under every bed mentality soo many people appear to be afflicted with is nothing more than a reflection of their own paranoia and cowardice. Its discusting.
You're also trying to argue both sides here, by saying that browsers need to deal in the real world, but at the same time they should make assumptions that could only be valid if every browser instantly followed specifications as they were released.
I'm not concerned about the past. I tested every current browser I could find YEARS ago and they all worked as expected.
Old versions of browsers are subject to a wide array of exploits dwelling on them is fruitless.
In the real world, the header was redefined,
The purpose of the referer field has always been constant as far as I understand it.
redefinition caused years later as developers "missed spots" when securing it. In the real world, it's easier to create an entirely new header that is supposed to be secure from the beginning
Again I don't think referer has changed. New features were added to the platform which interfered with previous security assumptions. People later fixed their mistakes after realizing the error of their ways.
It's terrible security practice all around, and this should be obvious to anyone who's actually done development.
I personally think that we could do one better by not relying on any sort of referrer mechanism, but at the very least, saying the way it was done is the best way in light of the history of the issue is silly.
I am only concerned with the present and future. The "best" way is useless to me if it does not exist or I can't take advantage of it in the present.
Right now the only two options other than checking referer I have any knowledge of are:
1. Not using cookies at all
2. Using different domains for the cookies
Neither option is acceptable and wishing things were different does me no good in the present.
Googles domain concept is particularly useless when access to user uploaded content is subject to authentication.
All in all, basing security on a header that was never secure is a dumb idea. Instead of redefining an old header, make a new one. This is security we're talking about, not opening a Word 97 document on Word 2008. If it's not secure, it should break, it shouldn't make a best effort.
Please see the specification which explicitly exempts Referer and a host of other fields in request from being user changable.
http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest
All in all, basing security on a header that was never secure is a dumb idea.
The browser is expected to moderate certain activity protecting the end user from an "anything goes" scripting environment.
There were security bugs that got fixed but I don't understand the assertion being made about this field never being secure. The specifications for xmlhttprequest seems pretty clear to me on the intent to protect this field.
If it's not secure, it should break, it shouldn't make a best effort.
You seem to be making a philosophical or political argument. While I respect your opinion no specification is perfect and people often don't have the luxury of always doing what "sounds good" on paper.
I invite anyone to provide an objective reason or reference to the same why this would not work in the "real world".
mean, I still think it's not a good idea, and that same google shows that there are many ways around it, and other headers don't share the same protection so trusting them is a bad habit to get into, but it looks like it would take more than the two minutes I was willing to spend. Google around. It may not be trivial anymore, but it's still very possible.
I would REALLY like to know how it is still possible to forge a referer field from a browser request. There are lots of talking heads on the Internet who more or less assume what many here have in this regard.
I know how to clear the referer field but having previously spent dozens of hours researching this with no solution that does not involve ancient bugs or signaling outside the browsers session context.
Any specific pointers or implementations rather than unspecific references to talking heads assuming you are a foolish moron for asking would be very much appreciated.
Because a lot of proxies and web browser extensions strip Referer for privacy reasons.
Privacy plugins only strip foreign referers not same domain which is all that is needed in this case.
Funny they list facebook, twitter, online photo sharing, online banking and shopping as "the cloud". It would be interesting to hear from TFA what on the Internet does not count as "the cloud" ?
Had noticed TFA is making fun of people who think stormy weather can "interfere with the functionality of the cloud" when just a few weeks ago an electrical storm triggered a massive outage in the Amazon "cloud".
For icing on my cloud cake we have marketeers commenting about how everyone has a favorable view of the cloud when the only thing that seems clear is too many people including the author does not seem to have a coherent grasp of what it is their talking about.
Listening to these people they are all assuming there is some sort of analouge to physical reality to be had when no such thing exists.
"Resources" are meaningless. Your advasary does not need aircraft carriers, subs and tanks. A dialup modem is just as capable of bringing down power grids as is a well connected multi-gigabit pipe at every IXP.
One smart, board or lucky person located anywhere can cause you just as much grief as an army of lesser such people.
Denial of capabilities means nothing when those capabilities have already been used against you and you just don't know it yet. In fact any useless attempt to disrupt networks or capabilities could very well trigger a failsafe response. The only way to deny capabilities is to help your side secure their shit.
"Mapping of networks" Oh yea cause if you know where an attack is coming from you can turn it off and that will fix everything... knowledge of network topology is meaningless.
"Access to cyberspace domain, information, networks, systems, or devices"
Its called hacking. If you ask nicely a three letter agency might share their cache of 0-days with you...but my guess they will refuse to waste their precious capability on "cyber war" bullshit.
"Denial of service on cyberspace resources, current/future operating systems, and network devices" ...
All you need is a low orbit ion cannon, a few rofolcopters on your lolz craft carriers and nobody will mess with you... Denial of service is more military thinking with no useful analouge to any useful property of "cyberspace".
"Data manipulation"
Notepad..
"Ability to control cyberspace effects at specified times and places"
As if time and space mean anything in cyberspace.
"Situational awareness capabilities that give an operator near real-time effectiveness feedback in a form that is readily observed by the operator."
These are humans you are at war with. There is no neat satellite imagry detailing the effect of delivered ordinance, to think otherwise is dangerous self dellusion.
"Technologies/concepts for developing and assessing cyberspace capabilities while disconnected from the operational cyberspace domain (the Internet or communication networks) including IO modeling, simulation, and capability, and operational and performance assessments."
More military resource bullshit having no actual analouge to "cyberspace"
"Situational awareness capabilities that give an operator near real-time effectiveness feedback in a form that is readily observed by the operator."
See RFC 3514.
"Technologies/concepts for developing capabilities to assess and visualize non-kinetic cyberspace domain effects."
They were attacking us so we broke the Internet and therefore we won because nobody can attack us anymore.
"Cyberspace technologies/capabilities employing unique characteristics resulting in the adversary entering conflicts in a degraded state"
More useless military thinking... you assume the adversary has anything to loose or is capable of being "degraded" ...
Unless the airforce also has a real working "Stealth" quantum computer they are not telling anyone about its time to wake up and get real.
You trust your memory to remember that it has earned trust.
Try again.
Dispense with the rhetorical bullshit already.
You could keep track using external devices if you really gave a rats ass about your useless ideas.
Where is the actual text of the draft? The summary says very little and the source document is nowhere to be found.
Regarding "resistance to international governance of the Internet " .. did not the entire house just vote 414 to zilch against the ITU? No politician of any party will vote to scede power to others. This was never a serious issue so it does not count.
The protection of personal data thing sounds too good to be true. If anything like it passes NSLs would become unconstitutional because they depend on the third party doctrine to sidestep the 4th amendment...with that gone the patriot act is effectivly SOL.
The amount of information leakage from windows and applications is quite alarming.
BROWSER:
In particular the change to combined URL+search bar in IE9 has a particularly nasty behavior. ctrl+e is supposed to perform a search with your current search provider so if I type ctrl+e then 'test' it sends that to google or whatever.
ctrl+l is supposed to allow the user to enter a URL not search yet the only difference is it attempts to lookup/connect and if that fails assumes it is a search term so if you put in a hostname for a local intranet site even if it contains query parameters with private information that gets leaked to your search provider! It seems quite intentionally designed to cause information leakage.
The only option I know to change this turns off the search feature completely.
Host of other browser things for phishing/smartscreen, certificate recovation, scanning..etc are obvious in their need to send information and can be toggled thru software options.
OFFICE:
The other day I was in office and every time I tried to cut and paste something I inadvertently was triggering the translation feature this was sending portions of my document to Microsoft to be translated simply by highlighting text... The way it was done it is so much of an automated gesture thing it was virtually impossible for me to navigate thru the document without accidently tripping it off even after trying not to. I turned off all translations - it was driving me nuts.
The networking location awareness service continually leaks data to Microsoft and whenever you connect to a network the only way to change this is via registry hacks.
I'm not against the existance of features which require coordination over a network or central databases to work however it must be made clear via central configuration to the user what is happening and in all cases they must have the option to disable any functionality that calls home either locally or by group policy.
Disabling these features must not unecessarily punish the user by unecessarily crippling a subsystem in retaliation.
really time for computer science to grow up and join the rest of the pack. If a mechanical engineer designs a bridge that collapses under normal load, that engineer can be held PERSONALLY responsible for breach of duty
Is "Normal load" really the question TFA is posing?
Unless you are asserting the bridge should be able to withstand attack by any and all living thinking advasaries or the designer is to be held responsible your analogy would seem to fall short.
We NEED this responsibility, and so does the public we serve.
Are you sure? Did you ask them? How much more are they willing to pay for code that is guaranteed to repell all human advasaries?
They're growing tired of the mess that exists right now. Apple is trying to do better on this front but really it needs to go much futher, and the whole field needs to improve. We've had many decades of ad-hoc cowboy-coders.
Most malware today is installed by tricking users into doing something stupid. Even if all code had no expliotable defects it is foolish and unrealistic to assume this would appreciably change a damn thing. The central problem is not the software it is the USER.
Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt
What should the consequences be? Satire is protected speech in the US the last I checked.
People are uncomfortable and scared of all kinds of things does irrational fear give them the right to impune the rights of others? One big happy vigilante mob rule family?
If I don't like chinese people I'll just hang a big ole sign outside my chinese noodle shop saying no chinese allowed because they "scare" me.
Lots of rural access is served by small ISPs as the big guys won't touch those markets with a 10ft pole. None of these outfits have full time legal/process teams. Most have never even heard of FCC form 477 or simply incapable or unwilling to fill it out. The FCC for the most part lacks the will to enforce/care. Virtually all of the FCC data is coming from mid-sized to large providers only.
The FCCs definitions and inconsistancies still crack me up.
On pg 7 "In this report, we assess our nationâ(TM)s progress to date using the existing speed benchmark of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps."
Yet the map and summary are drawing conclusions based on 3mbit/768kbps. Why?
Yet still if you read the text of 477 "broadband" is considered to be "transfer rates
exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction"
Some consistancy would be nice rather than playing games with the word "broadband" to be assured a desired outcome in a given context.
Enough said..
Manual window management. It's 2012, if computers can drive cars, why do I still have to manually move windows around, resize them, alt-tab between overlapping windows, accidentally screw things up due to keyboard focus, etc. etc?
Yes, I know nerds hate change. But it's time for GUIs to move on, precisely because manual window management is counterproductive for almost every task. Maybe Metro isn't perfect, but you can't blame MS for trying
In order to address the problem of managing several applications displayed on screen at once a new system is designed which does not allow any more than two apps to appear on screen at once and you say at least Microsoft is trying.
I guess so..I know it is hard draging windows and resizing them the way you want... I know the computer should be expected to read your mind..etc...
I just think perhaps you might not be seeing the larger truth in all of this. If you don't want to be burdoned with straining yourself why not just get rid of your computer alltogether? Then you don't have to worry about it breaking or loosing any of your data, taking up space or costing you any money.. This just seems like such a great idea to me.
Any news site not wanting a search engine linking to them need no legislation. All they need to do is create a file called robots.txt in the root folder of their site with the following content:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
This will ensure said news site is never seen by anyone. The choice is yours and under your full control.
It very much is the way things are going to be done and it turns out, people like it. The
Why would they like it? Why would anyone who wouldn't upgrade their machines care that they had that option? How would having it matter to make someone "like it"?
How many iPhone users like the fact they can't swap out their battery like every other normal phone in existance? Oh yea...right they all do...I forgot about that reality distortion field.
experiment was first tried with the MacBook Air and people bought it without hesitation. Had the Air been a flop this wouldn't be happening.
How do you know?
Or put another way, I've never met someone that "upgraded" their laptop after 2 years anyway. They hand it down or put it to work in the corner of the room, but they aren't upgraded.
My notebook is 4 years old and I have "upgraded" memory and disks multiple times. It has a removable drive bay that can accomodate an extra battery or a second hard disk I use for data redundancy. High capacity disks did not exist when I origionally purchased my notebook.
Whether it is a Dell, Mac, or Thinkpad. I put more ram in mine after 3, but I think I"m by far the exception. The most upgrades laptops probably ever received was in that period of time when you could replace the old hdd with ssd and get a huge bump. Now we're falling out of that even as laptops come stock with ssd.
I'm sure Apple or whoever can get away with this shit within their market segment. What I don't see is where the value to the user in this is?
If you can't even change the hard drive yourself or it costs a lot more since you are no longer able to "hire" the neighborhood tech geek to help you ... how does this add value or help you or anyone else in any way?
I'm sure companies like Apple would love to lock down everything as much as possible and train their users to pay them continuously for shit and repairs they really don't need or could have done themselves.
I'm sure media and content companies would like nothing better than to lock down general purpose systems so that they can't be used to do anything they find objectionable too..
All I can do is vote against waste, tyranny and selfish extraction of value with my dollar. I recommend everyone else follow suite.
What the Prop. 37 folks want is for the people who don't currently care about GMO one way or the other to see a label and think "Hmm, there's a label on this about it being genetically modified. That must mean it's something bad."
I care about how much trans fat is in the food I eat yet that information is denied to me. All the labels on all food says 0 grams due to loopholes you can drive a truck thru thanks to ag lobbies having their way with our elected representitives. I have to look for the words "partially hydrogenated" and take a wild guess whether the value is closer to .49g or .01g per totally arbitrary "serving".
Your argument reminds me of striping the labels from medicines and replacing them with generic statements detailing their intended function and thinking people won't care or miss the information. Guess what they would. I fail to see why food should be any different. I should have the right to know if I'm getting a tylenol or a baer or a generic version of the same.
If my corn has DNA spliced in from turtles and clownfish I WANT to know that. I want to make my own decisions before beta testing a new infallible creation of man on my family. I don't care who is supposedly inconvienced with labeling requirements in the process.
To say that I have GMO-free choices misses the point entirely. I'm not at all against GMO. I want to know specifically what strain I'm getting GMO or not.