It is needed only to upload files, or to save downloaded files in the Downloads directory instead of the app's private directory.
Personally, that seems like a huge security risk. I want the VPN to provide the pipe, and only have the permissions for managing the pipe. Uploading and downloading files should be done by other apps, that live on the other side of that pipe.
It is done for convenience, so you can download the config file normally, and then choose it from a file browser in the VPN app.
I actually don't even want the app to support changing the config; I bake my config into the APK, and if I need to change it, I generate a new APK from a secure workstation. That's the sort of process you need if you really want security; though you could also just install the config file with adb push.
Regular users who don't have a continuous integration process that generates the config files should probably not have config files, and just input the settings into the app directly, and use app data backup to prevent most cases of needing to re-enter the data.
Eventually you'll want features, and you'll be forced to ask: Why? Why do "all" the apps I look to install ask for excess permissions? Is it an inherent feature of apps, or is it merely a typical feature of apps that you get from a certain source?
And the answer is oh so simple; you're getting apps from Brandybrand(TM) App Store, instead of from F-Droid.
Hilarious! Thanks Ivan for sharing the results of your afternoon with Google Translate.
I hope it was as much fun to write as it was to laugh at.
A simple, common word such "incorporate" can be so hilarious when misunderstood! Presumably your native tongue lacks Latin roots, so it didn't occur to you that the root translates to "body" and to "incorporate" means to give something a body. If you had that insight, you'd expect it to have a wide variety of contextual meanings. But if you don't know about Latin roots, then the mistake you made makes sense.
Doesn't it concern you that the government can just say "national security concerns" and ban pretty much anything? Even if it's not a ban on private business use, businesses are going to heed that message, especially if they want government contracts.
Nope. As an American, possessing Free Speech, if the Government banned use of my equipment by Government I'd simply use it in a marketing campaign and wallow in increased sales.
If it hurts sales, it is because they're a foreign company, controlled by a largely-hostile foreign government, who positions themselves as a political and military rival of the US. That's normal. It is the US Government's job to warn us about that sort of threat, so as a side-effect of their spending decision, it is entirely within their bailiwick.
If the military decides to only buy bullets from companies in the US or Allied countries, that wouldn't bother me either. The idea that this represents some sort of slippery slope is not only absurd, it is fucking daft.
Yes it is a perfectly valid and constitutional reason as long as that REALLY is the reason.
Wrong. The Court is not permitted to substitute their own judgment about what the reason "really" is.
When Congress grants the Executive the right to make some decision based on National Security, then the Court has to balance the Rights of Congress against the Rights of the Executive. So in that type of situation, which is more common, the Court has to consider not only the discretion granted by Congress, but also if it was exercised reasonably. That standard is easy to meet, unless the Executive went in the opposite direction than Congress allowed for. Or for example with some of the problems President Trump has had implementing his policies, if the Executive comes right out and gives a reason in public, then that might be given a small amount of weight. But only where it is something that the President decided directly. And, under normal circumstances any public statements will be carefully hedged and the Court will see that and ignore them.
But here, it is the action that Congress took that is being challenged; so it is a totally different type of situation. The right of Congress to pass the budget, including whatever spending restrictions they include, is only balanced against rights explicitly stated in the Constitution, and to a lesser extent the body of English Common Law that existed at the nation's Founding. And there is no Constitutional Right at play here; being refused government contracts is not a "taking" that requires compensation, nor is it a criminal charge that requires a Jury.
And foreign actors don't have any rights that would even be balanced against National Security; the closest they can get is for the Court to look at, "are the accusations about some subject matter that is related to National Security?" That's it. They're not going to weigh the facts. They're going to weigh only if the subject matter is part of National Security, and if Congress has the authority to make spending determinations based on it. The answers to which are all totally obvious.
This is a PR suit, nothing more. It is exactly the same, legally, as if Russia sued the US military for refusing to buy weapons from them.
And if you're up for a thought experiment; if they did have a colorable legal argument, they'd still have to lose, because all the evidence would be classified and they wouldn't be able to use it. They'd do discovery, have nothing but redacted pages, and the Court would have to rule that they hadn't produced enough evidence to prove their case. And on the other side, the Court will have to take the Government's word about how to characterize their secret evidence in a civil case. You can't really sue the Government successfully over matters of National Security even when you have a legit legal case to make! There are exceptions, but they "prove the rule" by their novel elements.
I'm not sure it counts as ironic when it is literally illegal for them to say anything else when they talk about it; they certainly aren't allowed to invert it and say the opposite, if that is what they believe.
WTO doesn't grant companies the right to do business here. That's nonsense. If that was true, American businesses could go to China and open local branches. Good luck with that.
WTO says you have to treat imports the same regardless of which country they're from. That doesn't mean that foreign companies can also come here and be the importers.
The reason foreign businesses can do business in the US so easily is merely because of US policy, not because of "rights."
If there is systemic oppression, that does not tell you that you even have individual "oppressors."
If you're making accusations against individuals, but your gripe is actually about something systemic, you're attempting to oppress the ones you accuse.
And, the reason the people you have a feeling of conflict towards are "in the progressive movement" might be simply that those are people who interact with you at a higher rate, and that you feel oppressed overall. Perhaps people oppressing you would be mostly-invisible, because they're the ones that didn't spend time with you, didn't do business with you, didn't return your call, etc. You apply for something, some right winger denies your application, and then when you come into their office to complain, they make some liberal talk to you about it. To you, it is that person who wishes they could help you that is oppressing you, but really it isn't.
In my own personal experience (admittedly anecdotal evidence with a sample size of 1), I can see a significant difference up to about 100 fps, and can reliably tell the difference between 100 and 144 fps when things are moving fast.
https://www.testufo.com/
I heard some cluestick saying that humans "can't" hear frequencies above 20khz, and accusing people who can hear artifacts in digital recordings of lying, but then when I looked up the actual range of hearing it said that some people can hear much higher frequencies. And there is no reason to expect the distribution not to include the full range that other mammals can detect; that is how that whole "bell curve" thing works! A few people have hearing so much more sensitive than anybody else that their hearing is basically useless, they're constantly swimming in loud noise, and a few others can hear things at different frequencies than other people.
The funniest part is that the level that most of these idiots choose to believe in as a hard upper limit is merely the 95th percentile! LMFAO
Once I even had a guy tell me that it is "impossible" to have 20/10 vision. The reality is that most "full" eye charts can only test to 20/15.
Nevermind that it might look visually smooth because of a low-pass filter at the interface between the visual system and the conscious system; you might still be able to detect and react to changes much faster, using a totally different mental pathway. For example, studies show that monkeys trained to look for a colored dot on the screen have a different response to correctly-colored and incorrectly-colored dots in cells in their visual system that come before the higher brain functions. When you're looking for something specific and staring intently, there is some sort of sub-processing done in the brain that changes cellular responses in the sensory systems. This is not yet very well understood, at least as it relates to human experience. There is absolutely no reason to believe that during some activity you only and exclusively use the visual data that got copied into your frontal lobes; there are other systems also being used!
Just like, high level athletes sometimes respond more quickly to a stimulus than would be "possible" if the input had to make it to the higher brain functions and back; clearly their conscious mind is operating some sort of fly-by-wire system where some part of their sensory input is filtered and shunted directly to the major nerves in a way that results in a coordinated, practiced set of movements.
You were only told that humans can't self-report conscious detection of higher frame rates.
You heard that, and in your simplistic, unscientific brain it turned into, "the human visual sensory system and motor system is not equipped to use the higher FPS at all."
If you don't have the reading comprehension to paraphrase a narrow scientific claim, how can you possibly take it to the next level and provide contextual analysis?
And yet, if you were spending 5 hours a week driving just to drive, with no destination, just there-and-back to enjoy time behind the wheel, I'd say you were a very serious about driving as a hobby.
A person who plays chess 5 hours a week is a "fairly serious" player.
A person who cooks most of their meals spends more than 5 hours a week at it, serious or not, but if you do 5 hours a week of serious cooking just because you wanted to, that's being pretty serious about cooking.
Absolutely not. I think, instead, money for studies should go to attempting to answer known questions. Otherwise, why is money being specifically earmarked? Let researchers do the "blue sky" parts from their normal budgets, and then when they think they have something that matters, fund a specific study.
If you're trying to do what I suggested above, don't waste money that is supposed to go to science; instead hire some writers and anthropologists to create some bullshit from whole cloth, and then work backwards and make some bullshit fake studies.
Where people live is a total crap correlation to care about for discovering the root causes of things. The root causes should be analyzed where the exposure is high first; do the children of people working in the pesticide factories have a super-high rate of autism? That's what you'd see if it was from pesticides. Then it would make sense to look at community exposure. But doing that backwards is idiotic; poor people get most diseases at an increased rate, so of course living on shitty land is going to correlate with all the diseases.
Examples of the correct order of study is as with lead poisoning or asbestos exposure; people who work with it were found to have serious health problems, which led to an understanding of the problems, which then led to studies of how the public is affected by lower levels of exposure. In the case of lead, it turns out lots of poor people were affected, and it even shows up in crime rates and things. But those effects are too small to have ever been able to lead backwards to an understanding of lead poisoning on their own without the knowledge from the more serious exposure cases.
The autism/vaccination myth is hard to attack, because it is manufactured under conditions where the factory workers aren't directly exposed to it. So mythological bullshit seems possible at the surface level in a way that something like pesticides can't compete with.
And anyways, you're probably better with a non-science-based counter-conspiracy; follow the money to Bad Scary People and expose that, instead of what we have now for messaging which is, "throw rotten fruit at that one guy who lied for money, and point at a corporation that also does good things and complain that they use money for PR." None of that pulls hard on emotional strings, and the complaints aren't even very accessible to the sort of people who buy the conspiracy theories. You need heavyweight bullshit, not something that sounds good to some clever smart guy.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's going to say no?
1) Anyone with a brain
2) Anyone who knows what a VPN is for
3) Anyone who knows about F-Droid and has better options.
I know, I know, that's only a few dozen people, but they're the people who matter.
I'm not even convinced they're "security" apps, they might just be the "warez" tool of the modern age.
Seriously, are people completely fucking stupid?
Yes. Seriously.
Hontony honta, nya.
It is needed only to upload files, or to save downloaded files in the Downloads directory instead of the app's private directory.
Personally, that seems like a huge security risk. I want the VPN to provide the pipe, and only have the permissions for managing the pipe. Uploading and downloading files should be done by other apps, that live on the other side of that pipe.
It is done for convenience, so you can download the config file normally, and then choose it from a file browser in the VPN app.
I actually don't even want the app to support changing the config; I bake my config into the APK, and if I need to change it, I generate a new APK from a secure workstation. That's the sort of process you need if you really want security; though you could also just install the config file with adb push.
Regular users who don't have a continuous integration process that generates the config files should probably not have config files, and just input the settings into the app directly, and use app data backup to prevent most cases of needing to re-enter the data.
Then don't install any apps.
Eventually you'll want features, and you'll be forced to ask: Why? Why do "all" the apps I look to install ask for excess permissions? Is it an inherent feature of apps, or is it merely a typical feature of apps that you get from a certain source?
And the answer is oh so simple; you're getting apps from Brandybrand(TM) App Store, instead of from F-Droid.
You should really get out more.
The existence of spies and spying does not seem to in any way suggest that concerns about spying are unfounded, though.
Hilarious! Thanks Ivan for sharing the results of your afternoon with Google Translate.
I hope it was as much fun to write as it was to laugh at.
A simple, common word such "incorporate" can be so hilarious when misunderstood! Presumably your native tongue lacks Latin roots, so it didn't occur to you that the root translates to "body" and to "incorporate" means to give something a body. If you had that insight, you'd expect it to have a wide variety of contextual meanings. But if you don't know about Latin roots, then the mistake you made makes sense.
Doesn't it concern you that the government can just say "national security concerns" and ban pretty much anything? Even if it's not a ban on private business use, businesses are going to heed that message, especially if they want government contracts.
Nope. As an American, possessing Free Speech, if the Government banned use of my equipment by Government I'd simply use it in a marketing campaign and wallow in increased sales.
If it hurts sales, it is because they're a foreign company, controlled by a largely-hostile foreign government, who positions themselves as a political and military rival of the US. That's normal. It is the US Government's job to warn us about that sort of threat, so as a side-effect of their spending decision, it is entirely within their bailiwick.
If the military decides to only buy bullets from companies in the US or Allied countries, that wouldn't bother me either. The idea that this represents some sort of slippery slope is not only absurd, it is fucking daft.
Yes it is a perfectly valid and constitutional reason as long as that REALLY is the reason.
Wrong. The Court is not permitted to substitute their own judgment about what the reason "really" is.
When Congress grants the Executive the right to make some decision based on National Security, then the Court has to balance the Rights of Congress against the Rights of the Executive. So in that type of situation, which is more common, the Court has to consider not only the discretion granted by Congress, but also if it was exercised reasonably. That standard is easy to meet, unless the Executive went in the opposite direction than Congress allowed for. Or for example with some of the problems President Trump has had implementing his policies, if the Executive comes right out and gives a reason in public, then that might be given a small amount of weight. But only where it is something that the President decided directly. And, under normal circumstances any public statements will be carefully hedged and the Court will see that and ignore them.
But here, it is the action that Congress took that is being challenged; so it is a totally different type of situation. The right of Congress to pass the budget, including whatever spending restrictions they include, is only balanced against rights explicitly stated in the Constitution, and to a lesser extent the body of English Common Law that existed at the nation's Founding. And there is no Constitutional Right at play here; being refused government contracts is not a "taking" that requires compensation, nor is it a criminal charge that requires a Jury.
And foreign actors don't have any rights that would even be balanced against National Security; the closest they can get is for the Court to look at, "are the accusations about some subject matter that is related to National Security?" That's it. They're not going to weigh the facts. They're going to weigh only if the subject matter is part of National Security, and if Congress has the authority to make spending determinations based on it. The answers to which are all totally obvious.
This is a PR suit, nothing more. It is exactly the same, legally, as if Russia sued the US military for refusing to buy weapons from them.
And if you're up for a thought experiment; if they did have a colorable legal argument, they'd still have to lose, because all the evidence would be classified and they wouldn't be able to use it. They'd do discovery, have nothing but redacted pages, and the Court would have to rule that they hadn't produced enough evidence to prove their case. And on the other side, the Court will have to take the Government's word about how to characterize their secret evidence in a civil case. You can't really sue the Government successfully over matters of National Security even when you have a legit legal case to make! There are exceptions, but they "prove the rule" by their novel elements.
I'm not sure it counts as ironic when it is literally illegal for them to say anything else when they talk about it; they certainly aren't allowed to invert it and say the opposite, if that is what they believe.
WTO doesn't grant companies the right to do business here. That's nonsense. If that was true, American businesses could go to China and open local branches. Good luck with that.
WTO says you have to treat imports the same regardless of which country they're from. That doesn't mean that foreign companies can also come here and be the importers.
The reason foreign businesses can do business in the US so easily is merely because of US policy, not because of "rights."
If a case never even should have been filed, typically it is only the lawyer that gets penalized, not the client.
If there is systemic oppression, that does not tell you that you even have individual "oppressors."
If you're making accusations against individuals, but your gripe is actually about something systemic, you're attempting to oppress the ones you accuse.
And, the reason the people you have a feeling of conflict towards are "in the progressive movement" might be simply that those are people who interact with you at a higher rate, and that you feel oppressed overall. Perhaps people oppressing you would be mostly-invisible, because they're the ones that didn't spend time with you, didn't do business with you, didn't return your call, etc. You apply for something, some right winger denies your application, and then when you come into their office to complain, they make some liberal talk to you about it. To you, it is that person who wishes they could help you that is oppressing you, but really it isn't.
In my own personal experience (admittedly anecdotal evidence with a sample size of 1), I can see a significant difference up to about 100 fps, and can reliably tell the difference between 100 and 144 fps when things are moving fast.
https://www.testufo.com/
I heard some cluestick saying that humans "can't" hear frequencies above 20khz, and accusing people who can hear artifacts in digital recordings of lying, but then when I looked up the actual range of hearing it said that some people can hear much higher frequencies. And there is no reason to expect the distribution not to include the full range that other mammals can detect; that is how that whole "bell curve" thing works! A few people have hearing so much more sensitive than anybody else that their hearing is basically useless, they're constantly swimming in loud noise, and a few others can hear things at different frequencies than other people.
The funniest part is that the level that most of these idiots choose to believe in as a hard upper limit is merely the 95th percentile! LMFAO
Once I even had a guy tell me that it is "impossible" to have 20/10 vision. The reality is that most "full" eye charts can only test to 20/15.
Nevermind that it might look visually smooth because of a low-pass filter at the interface between the visual system and the conscious system; you might still be able to detect and react to changes much faster, using a totally different mental pathway. For example, studies show that monkeys trained to look for a colored dot on the screen have a different response to correctly-colored and incorrectly-colored dots in cells in their visual system that come before the higher brain functions. When you're looking for something specific and staring intently, there is some sort of sub-processing done in the brain that changes cellular responses in the sensory systems. This is not yet very well understood, at least as it relates to human experience. There is absolutely no reason to believe that during some activity you only and exclusively use the visual data that got copied into your frontal lobes; there are other systems also being used!
Just like, high level athletes sometimes respond more quickly to a stimulus than would be "possible" if the input had to make it to the higher brain functions and back; clearly their conscious mind is operating some sort of fly-by-wire system where some part of their sensory input is filtered and shunted directly to the major nerves in a way that results in a coordinated, practiced set of movements.
You were only told that humans can't self-report conscious detection of higher frame rates.
You heard that, and in your simplistic, unscientific brain it turned into, "the human visual sensory system and motor system is not equipped to use the higher FPS at all."
If you don't have the reading comprehension to paraphrase a narrow scientific claim, how can you possibly take it to the next level and provide contextual analysis?
And yet, if you were spending 5 hours a week driving just to drive, with no destination, just there-and-back to enjoy time behind the wheel, I'd say you were a very serious about driving as a hobby.
A person who plays chess 5 hours a week is a "fairly serious" player.
A person who cooks most of their meals spends more than 5 hours a week at it, serious or not, but if you do 5 hours a week of serious cooking just because you wanted to, that's being pretty serious about cooking.
Absolutely not. I think, instead, money for studies should go to attempting to answer known questions. Otherwise, why is money being specifically earmarked? Let researchers do the "blue sky" parts from their normal budgets, and then when they think they have something that matters, fund a specific study.
If you're trying to do what I suggested above, don't waste money that is supposed to go to science; instead hire some writers and anthropologists to create some bullshit from whole cloth, and then work backwards and make some bullshit fake studies.
Where people live is a total crap correlation to care about for discovering the root causes of things. The root causes should be analyzed where the exposure is high first; do the children of people working in the pesticide factories have a super-high rate of autism? That's what you'd see if it was from pesticides. Then it would make sense to look at community exposure. But doing that backwards is idiotic; poor people get most diseases at an increased rate, so of course living on shitty land is going to correlate with all the diseases.
Examples of the correct order of study is as with lead poisoning or asbestos exposure; people who work with it were found to have serious health problems, which led to an understanding of the problems, which then led to studies of how the public is affected by lower levels of exposure. In the case of lead, it turns out lots of poor people were affected, and it even shows up in crime rates and things. But those effects are too small to have ever been able to lead backwards to an understanding of lead poisoning on their own without the knowledge from the more serious exposure cases.
The autism/vaccination myth is hard to attack, because it is manufactured under conditions where the factory workers aren't directly exposed to it. So mythological bullshit seems possible at the surface level in a way that something like pesticides can't compete with.
And anyways, you're probably better with a non-science-based counter-conspiracy; follow the money to Bad Scary People and expose that, instead of what we have now for messaging which is, "throw rotten fruit at that one guy who lied for money, and point at a corporation that also does good things and complain that they use money for PR." None of that pulls hard on emotional strings, and the complaints aren't even very accessible to the sort of people who buy the conspiracy theories. You need heavyweight bullshit, not something that sounds good to some clever smart guy.
You forgot to integrate your semantics, though.
If a joke falls without meaning, is it still a joke?
Right, right, right, if you don't have the money, you have to learn how to do the thing.
If that is so hard, why do you think you should do it?
Audio recording and editing is technical, but it isn't brain science or rocket surgery.
"I need spend moneys `cause I dunnu no how too install opens horse!"
Get you some library, fool.
In a world of idiots, the person who can differentiate is either an idiot too, or a hermit.
He's old enough to preach about shit he doesn't understand, that's old. Not everybody gets there on the same schedule.
Ninjas are never safe, and they never expected to be safe.
I recommend leaping to safety, or at least throwing shuriken at the grill so that they can identify and return your body.
Thanks! That quickly clarifies that this research is about the machine learning datasets used to train AI-based optical image classifiers.
This story basically says that Facebook is using mind control to create an army of zombie cultists who rely exclusively on them for social sustenance.
It is much worse than you realized.
--
#TheyLive