You're right. We should all pretend the rude ignoramuses around us aren't rude ignoramuses.
No, it is pointless to pretend something that isn't so.
Social pressure should never be applied, and people should simply keep their heads down when someone is being vile and outrageous.
God wouldn't that be something to respect some dumbass enough to just ignore them. That would be amazing.
The problem is that you were the one who used the words "spurning hysterical people" you don't win an argument or friends or convey tolerance or respect for others by "spurning" people no matter what you think of their ideas. This isn't a civil course of action it is acting like a child which is why the jist of your argument is an oxymoron.
Shouting down people you disagree with isn't being civil and does not make you look cool no matter what nonsense they are peddling. There are more effective ways to communicate that don't involve "spurning".
So your objection to touchscreens is that you have to pay to fix them when they break. How is that not true of non-touchscreen control systems?
Physical switches are cheaper and more reliable than touch screens... quite frankly they are also much easier to use and much safer. My system was designed to be fully controllable with tactile feedback so I never have to look at it while I'm supposed to be driving.
Non-integrated entertainment systems can be swapped out with your choice of dirt cheap bluetooth enabled equipment purchased at your local WallMart.
Good luck with that. I would be astonished if you could find any car dealer who would agree to such a request. Even if they knew how to do it that would involve substantial unnecessary work which they are unlikely to agree to. Furthermore they would be accepting liability risk of you coming back to them having sold them a non-functioning product.
The point isn't whether or how they comply. The point is they lose actual sales for not complying. This is all that matters. Technical means of compliance is irrelevant.
Hard to imagine a dealer just silently losing sales over stupid shit like this and not pushing back on their suppliers for a solution.
It's not necessary. You might prefer it that way which I guess is fine but it isn't even remotely necessary. Personally I like all the cellular and GPS stuff and no I'm not paranoid about it. If they screw with me I can afford a decent lawyer.
This is fucking nonsense. You will have no clue or way of knowing what the spy shit was doing or who it was talking to. Those undecipherable open ended polymorphic legal agreements cover the rest. They have more and better lawyers than you can afford.
In the real world corporations do anything and everything they can get away with to maximize their profits. Consumers pushing back against bullshit has always been a critical part of maintaining the system. Whether it is standing in line to return a defective product or telling all your friends x, y or z sucks. If corporations don't see a cost they will go for it.
Because being an anti-social prick is so very superior
Ignoring/tolerating people who say or do things you don't like is so very superior.
Being civil is what decent people do, and spurning hysterical people, whether because they are overly sensitive, or overly sensitive to overly sensitive people, is what decent people should do.
This is an oxymoron.
Grow up. Racial stereotypes, like farting in public, is just plain bad behavior, and it isn't "pussification" to call out incidents of either.
"Grow up" is a good response to anyone publically engaged in calling someone out for farting in public.
When people compare Jar Jar to Black peeps they are not really being serious.. it is all a faux argument intended to stoke controversy and whore attention for fame and profit. No matter how repetitive and stupid it becomes people still fall for it over and over again. I am outraged by *** please give me another 15 minutes.
Something I never quite understood is why don't agencies just characterize every bit of data produced and make all non-exempted data available online automatically? No more wasting time answering piecemeal FOA requests and doing one-off searches. Let the news agencies conduct their own searches at the expense of their own employees time.
Perhaps not worth the effort for historical/archived data yet going forward how hard is it just make this a standard part of an agencies workflow?
You evidently didn't read the last line in TFS. FOIAs aren't free to file.
For the record FOIA requests are free to file however you can be charged for costs associated with search and reproduction of materials sought.
hey cost money to prepare and turn over. Add to that the restrictions on time to produce (10 days in my state. No idea what the federal time limit is) as well as the maze that is the legal exemptions on a FOIA request and it gets quite expensive.
Any objective figures to share?
What news agency is willing to be the first to fork over the money just to have the means to recoup the funds pulled out from under them?
How should I know? Was any useful information provided that would be helpful in making a determination? All I see are articles teeming with loaded words.
As for why a news outfit would bother to do their job... I don't know... neither does Volvo I suspect.
I have a Galaxy S5, and have encountered the same types of problems with the baked-into-the-OS Google services. I have rooted the phone, installed app-ops (useless Google window dressing), and then xposed framework and xprivacy. The level of intrusion and data capture is simply stunning.
Wait a second, the EFF was just telling me the Internet is a Telecommunications Service, not an Information Service, in order to get the Title II regulations they were cheerleading for.
Either the Internet is an Information Service (meaning Title II and CALEA don't apply), or it isn't (so it's a telecommunication service, and CALEA does apply), but you can't have it both ways.
Providing access to the Internet is a telecommunications service. (Your ISP is acting as a telecommunications service)
Offering content is an information service. (Wikipedia is an information service)
It is also possible for a single company to act as both a telecommunications service and an information service. (Google provides Internet Access and offers Content)
While all a part of the "Internet" here in the US each aspect is regulated differently. CAELA explicitly does not apply to information services such as Wikipedia. All US ISPs however are already obligated to comply with CAELA requests with or without Title II.
But then again, there might. How is one to know? That's the biggest problem I have with the mobile telecom computing model. I have no idea what the apps do, and no way, other than make it my life's work, to find out.
If you have Android and root steal a wakelock and run tcpdump for a day.
Think about it. Some entity somewhere gets into multiple infrastructure systems, shuts down power, water, gas,
I think someone already did. It was part of the plot line in one of the die hard movies.
takes down key sites like facebook and twitter so people can't communicate,
OMFG NOOOO!!!
Then, on top of that panic multiple attacks around the country at nearly same time. Just the confusion and panic alone would be scarring to most people.
VOA... ugh.. I mean CNN is scarring to most people. I now have PTSD thanks to 24x7 coverage of security industry shills including Mr cherkoff himself masturbating about "possible" July 4th ISIS plots all last week.
"Nah, that'll never happen", maybe not, but holy shit, imagine if it did.
If you ask me too many people are currently engaged in "imagining if it did". Bet against Hanlon at your own risk.
ICANN is full of bottom-feeding scum-sucking algae eaters.
They don't care about policy which furthers the best interests of Internet users they only care about enriching themselves and their fellow algae eaters at the expense of Internet users everywhere.
If you want to encourage domain owners not to lie when registering a domain the only policy available to you is offering *EVERYONE* privacy controls so there is less incentive for them to do so.
I only see two possibilities. 1. You are up to shady shit in which case you won't much care if your domain is taken away given it takes two seconds to register a new one.
2. You are a legitimate business or individual willing to go through extra hoops including paying extra fees to protect your privacy (while still offering some way to be contacted) from the mobs of idiots who inhabit the Internet. You and ONLY you will be fucked over by ICANN policy.
Those in the first category will not be affected in any way because they don't give a shit about rules and there is no credible threat of force to keep them in line. This only hurts people who want to protect themselves.
What I would very much like to see operators get together and create just the threat of an alternate root to put these assholes on notice.
The AC is right. Belief isn't subject to the will. You can't simply start and stop believing anything, religious or not, of your own volition.
I *believe* this is pure psychobabble nonsense much like responding to "just be yourself" with "I can't not be myself".
You can make a conscious decision to seek evidence which changes or invalidates your current beliefs. People change and or ditch religions beliefs all the time.
That doesn't go far enough. Some trolls harass over other things. Trolling and stalking need to be clamped down on.
Isn't it funny how everyone wants to use legal systems to have their personal way with others. I don't like this so I support ban on x... I think this so I want y outlawed.
For example at this moment I think it would be swell if there was a law that banned people like yourself from the Internet. This is necessary to protect the network from damage caused by people who would rather see speech censored than have to man up enough to tolerate things they don't like.
First, we're only talking Windows 10 PHONE Secondly, it's only available on networks you choose to allow this on.
Quoting TFA:
", and access to password-protected networks are shared with contacts unless the user remembers to uncheck a box when they first connect."
Is this saying that choosing to allow requires users to take a non-default action to uncheck a box or is there something missing or being intentionally distorted?
If you have to uncheck a box to prevent sharing as TFA implies then that's crap.
Third, yes, your wifi passwords are being backed up to make it easier when you migrate devices - Apple, Google and Microsoft all do this on your mobile devices. This isn't new!
So? What does it matter who else is doing it or how long it has been done?
HMAC is not just used in SSL. It's a commonly employed in a lot of protocols. It's an additional level of complexity beyond a 'broken' hash to compromise HMAC.
Exactly, just because a hash algorithm is broke for one purpose does not make it broke for all purposes. There are no publically known issues with even HMAC-MD5.
Should also mention the PRF construction of SSLv3 is exactly the same as TLSv1. Only TLSv1.1+ cipher suites have different PRF algorithm. Statement in section 4.3 is flat wrong.
The market loves when we have formal documents laid down by the Formal Documents People confirming what we've been telling our bosses for years. I would bet large sums of money that some tech, somewhere, just walked out of a meeting happy because he finally has permission to deprecate a long-broken system.
I was afraid people would push back with these arguments.
They would have had to miss section 3.1.1 of RFC7525 "Implementations MUST NOT negotiate SSL version 3.".. RFC7525 by the way is a BCP which is where this shit belongs.
My point was subtle. You can provide reasons why you shouldn't use this or that which can be used for the same reasons you enumerated all without the baseless assertions and demands.
BCPs are the appropriate venue for this not this largely redundant standards track RFC which happens to get noticed by Slashdot.
It is sufficient to offer a comprehensive list of reasons for operators to discontinue use of SSL. Declaring "This document requires that SSLv3 not be used" is a pointless assertion.
The market not IETF process decides which protocols will continue to be used going forward.
1. Your operating system is very old at nearly 7 years. Time flies bye and I laugh at the companies who are angry at the prospect of starting a WIndows 10 migration acting somehow that 7 just came out last year and is all so new etc.
You know what I find even funnier? The answers I get when I ask what the value prop of windows 10 is over windows 7.
On NT based versions of Windows I don't recall ever having problems with windows getting slower over time.
Sometimes DDE freaks out which can cause lag even entering text into the command line or number of programs open causes weird/slow redraw artifacts or a program/browser goes haywire and gobbles up all the GDI objects or something gets locked up in kernel space that causes zombies until reboot... but this is about the closest I've seen.
Known a number of people who have had problems with windows slowing over time. This behavior was always attributable to accumulation of malware and assorted crap... usually the accumulation just runs the system out of limited memory it had and starts swapping like crazy.
I expect any general purpose operating system if loaded under same conditions would exhibit similar properties.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. We should all pretend the rude ignoramuses around us aren't rude ignoramuses.
No, it is pointless to pretend something that isn't so.
Social pressure should never be applied, and people should simply keep their heads down when someone is being vile and outrageous.
God wouldn't that be something to respect some dumbass enough to just ignore them. That would be amazing.
The problem is that you were the one who used the words "spurning hysterical people" you don't win an argument or friends or convey tolerance or respect for others by "spurning" people no matter what you think of their ideas. This isn't a civil course of action it is acting like a child which is why the jist of your argument is an oxymoron.
Shouting down people you disagree with isn't being civil and does not make you look cool no matter what nonsense they are peddling. There are more effective ways to communicate that don't involve "spurning".
So your objection to touchscreens is that you have to pay to fix them when they break. How is that not true of non-touchscreen control systems?
Physical switches are cheaper and more reliable than touch screens... quite frankly they are also much easier to use and much safer. My system was designed to be fully controllable with tactile feedback so I never have to look at it while I'm supposed to be driving.
Non-integrated entertainment systems can be swapped out with your choice of dirt cheap bluetooth enabled equipment purchased at your local WallMart.
Good luck with that. I would be astonished if you could find any car dealer who would agree to such a request. Even if they knew how to do it that would involve substantial unnecessary work which they are unlikely to agree to. Furthermore they would be accepting liability risk of you coming back to them having sold them a non-functioning product.
The point isn't whether or how they comply. The point is they lose actual sales for not complying. This is all that matters. Technical means of compliance is irrelevant.
Hard to imagine a dealer just silently losing sales over stupid shit like this and not pushing back on their suppliers for a solution.
It's not necessary. You might prefer it that way which I guess is fine but it isn't even remotely necessary. Personally I like all the cellular and GPS stuff and no I'm not paranoid about it. If they screw with me I can afford a decent lawyer.
This is fucking nonsense. You will have no clue or way of knowing what the spy shit was doing or who it was talking to. Those undecipherable open ended polymorphic legal agreements cover the rest. They have more and better lawyers than you can afford.
In the real world corporations do anything and everything they can get away with to maximize their profits. Consumers pushing back against bullshit has always been a critical part of maintaining the system. Whether it is standing in line to return a defective product or telling all your friends x, y or z sucks. If corporations don't see a cost they will go for it.
Because being an anti-social prick is so very superior
Ignoring/tolerating people who say or do things you don't like is so very superior.
Being civil is what decent people do, and spurning hysterical people, whether because they are overly sensitive, or overly sensitive to overly sensitive people, is what decent people should do.
This is an oxymoron.
Grow up. Racial stereotypes, like farting in public, is just plain bad behavior, and it isn't "pussification" to call out incidents of either.
"Grow up" is a good response to anyone publically engaged in calling someone out for farting in public.
When people compare Jar Jar to Black peeps they are not really being serious.. it is all a faux argument intended to stoke controversy and whore attention for fame and profit. No matter how repetitive and stupid it becomes people still fall for it over and over again. I am outraged by *** please give me another 15 minutes.
Something I never quite understood is why don't agencies just characterize every bit of data produced and make all non-exempted data available online automatically? No more wasting time answering piecemeal FOA requests and doing one-off searches. Let the news agencies conduct their own searches at the expense of their own employees time.
Perhaps not worth the effort for historical/archived data yet going forward how hard is it just make this a standard part of an agencies workflow?
You evidently didn't read the last line in TFS. FOIAs aren't free to file.
For the record FOIA requests are free to file however you can be charged for costs associated with search and reproduction of materials sought.
hey cost money to prepare and turn over. Add to that the restrictions on time to produce (10 days in my state. No idea what the federal time limit is) as well as the maze that is the legal exemptions on a FOIA request and it gets quite expensive.
Any objective figures to share?
What news agency is willing to be the first to fork over the money just to have the means to recoup the funds pulled out from under them?
How should I know? Was any useful information provided that would be helpful in making a determination? All I see are articles teeming with loaded words.
As for why a news outfit would bother to do their job... I don't know... neither does Volvo I suspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I have a Galaxy S5, and have encountered the same types of problems with the baked-into-the-OS Google services. I have rooted the phone, installed app-ops (useless Google window dressing), and then xposed framework and xprivacy. The level of intrusion and data capture is simply stunning.
Google play services is spyware on a grand scale.
Wikipedia exchanging packets with an ISP isn't any different than me exchanging packets with my ISP.
This isn't really all that difficult to understand.
Wikipedia's ISP is subject to CALEA. Wikipedia itself acting as an information service is not.
Wait a second, the EFF was just telling me the Internet is a Telecommunications Service, not an Information Service, in order to get the Title II regulations they were cheerleading for.
Either the Internet is an Information Service (meaning Title II and CALEA don't apply), or it isn't (so it's a telecommunication service, and CALEA does apply), but you can't have it both ways.
Providing access to the Internet is a telecommunications service. (Your ISP is acting as a telecommunications service)
Offering content is an information service. (Wikipedia is an information service)
It is also possible for a single company to act as both a telecommunications service and an information service. (Google provides Internet Access and offers Content)
While all a part of the "Internet" here in the US each aspect is regulated differently. CAELA explicitly does not apply to information services such as Wikipedia. All US ISPs however are already obligated to comply with CAELA requests with or without Title II.
But then again, there might. How is one to know? That's the biggest problem I have with the mobile telecom computing model. I have no idea what the apps do, and no way, other than make it my life's work, to find out.
If you have Android and root steal a wakelock and run tcpdump for a day.
Think about it. Some entity somewhere gets into multiple infrastructure systems, shuts down power, water, gas,
I think someone already did. It was part of the plot line in one of the die hard movies.
takes down key sites like facebook and twitter so people can't communicate,
OMFG NOOOO!!!
Then, on top of that panic multiple attacks around the country at nearly same time.
Just the confusion and panic alone would be scarring to most people.
VOA... ugh.. I mean CNN is scarring to most people. I now have PTSD thanks to 24x7 coverage of security industry shills including Mr cherkoff himself masturbating about "possible" July 4th ISIS plots all last week.
"Nah, that'll never happen", maybe not, but holy shit, imagine if it did.
If you ask me too many people are currently engaged in "imagining if it did". Bet against Hanlon at your own risk.
ICANN is full of bottom-feeding scum-sucking algae eaters.
They don't care about policy which furthers the best interests of Internet users they only care about enriching themselves and their fellow algae eaters at the expense of Internet users everywhere.
If you want to encourage domain owners not to lie when registering a domain the only policy available to you is offering *EVERYONE* privacy controls so there is less incentive for them to do so.
I only see two possibilities. 1. You are up to shady shit in which case you won't much care if your domain is taken away given it takes two seconds to register a new one.
2. You are a legitimate business or individual willing to go through extra hoops including paying extra fees to protect your privacy (while still offering some way to be contacted) from the mobs of idiots who inhabit the Internet. You and ONLY you will be fucked over by ICANN policy.
Those in the first category will not be affected in any way because they don't give a shit about rules and there is no credible threat of force to keep them in line. This only hurts people who want to protect themselves.
What I would very much like to see operators get together and create just the threat of an alternate root to put these assholes on notice.
Every software developer, please stop using OpenSSL
It was crap then, it is crap now and it will be crap tomorrow. And LibreSSL is not the solution. You can't turn crap into something nice.
You need to provide a coherent reason if you want people to do what you ask. "Cuz it's crap" does not convey objectively useful information.
You want a decent SSL library, try mbed TLS.
Lost me at GPL. Lack of SRP and DTLS also deal breakers.
No, I'm in no way connected to mbed TLS. Just a happy mbed TLS user who doesn't understand why people keep on torturing themselves and their users.
I'm happy it works for you.
The AC is right. Belief isn't subject to the will. You can't simply start and stop believing anything, religious or not, of your own volition.
I *believe* this is pure psychobabble nonsense much like responding to "just be yourself" with "I can't not be myself".
You can make a conscious decision to seek evidence which changes or invalidates your current beliefs. People change and or ditch religions beliefs all the time.
That doesn't go far enough. Some trolls harass over other things. Trolling and stalking need to be clamped down on.
Isn't it funny how everyone wants to use legal systems to have their personal way with others. I don't like this so I support ban on x... I think this so I want y outlawed.
For example at this moment I think it would be swell if there was a law that banned people like yourself from the Internet. This is necessary to protect the network from damage caused by people who would rather see speech censored than have to man up enough to tolerate things they don't like.
Instead, Comcast is fully dual-stacked. As companies transition over to ipv6, the Comcast network is ready and fully capable of supporting them.
Still waiting for my static IPv6 allocation from Comcast.
First, we're only talking Windows 10 PHONE Secondly, it's only available on networks you choose to allow this on.
Quoting TFA:
", and access to password-protected networks are shared with contacts unless the user remembers to uncheck a box when they first connect."
Is this saying that choosing to allow requires users to take a non-default action to uncheck a box or is there something missing or being intentionally distorted?
If you have to uncheck a box to prevent sharing as TFA implies then that's crap.
Third, yes, your wifi passwords are being backed up to make it easier when you migrate devices - Apple, Google and Microsoft all do this on your mobile devices. This isn't new!
So? What does it matter who else is doing it or how long it has been done?
Internet connected toasters was supposed to be a joke highlighting the futility of perusing technological solutions to problems that don't exist.
Now we have assistant professors at Stanford acting like politicians who quote the Onion to defend their policy positions.
HMAC is not just used in SSL. It's a commonly employed in a lot of protocols. It's an additional level of complexity beyond a 'broken' hash to compromise HMAC.
Exactly, just because a hash algorithm is broke for one purpose does not make it broke for all purposes. There are no publically known issues with even HMAC-MD5.
Should also mention the PRF construction of SSLv3 is exactly the same as TLSv1. Only TLSv1.1+ cipher suites have different PRF algorithm. Statement in section 4.3 is flat wrong.
The point of this is not to enforce it, it's so that you can justify doing the right thing to management in the name of standards compliance.
This what BCPs are for. Specifically RFC7525 which already addresses this issue.
The market loves when we have formal documents laid down by the Formal Documents People confirming what we've been telling our bosses for years. I would bet large sums of money that some tech, somewhere, just walked out of a meeting happy because he finally has permission to deprecate a long-broken system.
I was afraid people would push back with these arguments.
They would have had to miss section 3.1.1 of RFC7525 "Implementations MUST NOT negotiate SSL version 3.".. RFC7525 by the way is a BCP which is where this shit belongs.
My point was subtle. You can provide reasons why you shouldn't use this or that which can be used for the same reasons you enumerated all without the baseless assertions and demands.
BCPs are the appropriate venue for this not this largely redundant standards track RFC which happens to get noticed by Slashdot.
It is sufficient to offer a comprehensive list of reasons for operators to discontinue use of SSL. Declaring "This document requires that SSLv3 not be used" is a pointless assertion.
The market not IETF process decides which protocols will continue to be used going forward.
1. Your operating system is very old at nearly 7 years. Time flies bye and I laugh at the companies who are angry at the prospect of starting a WIndows 10 migration acting somehow that 7 just came out last year and is all so new etc.
You know what I find even funnier? The answers I get when I ask what the value prop of windows 10 is over windows 7.
On NT based versions of Windows I don't recall ever having problems with windows getting slower over time.
Sometimes DDE freaks out which can cause lag even entering text into the command line or number of programs open causes weird/slow redraw artifacts or a program/browser goes haywire and gobbles up all the GDI objects or something gets locked up in kernel space that causes zombies until reboot... but this is about the closest I've seen.
Known a number of people who have had problems with windows slowing over time. This behavior was always attributable to accumulation of malware and assorted crap... usually the accumulation just runs the system out of limited memory it had and starts swapping like crazy.
I expect any general purpose operating system if loaded under same conditions would exhibit similar properties.