How do you know what the default access gives you access to?
And how do you know that the storage is even writable to change anything?
Making random assumptions to imagine a situation where my example wouldn't work is not exactly attempting in good faith to think about it. The task in thinking about something is first to consider cases where it might be true, and work out from there.
Not every application has the same need for security. This could be used for things like a kiosk that only offers services to people with the key. I wouldn't implement it that way, but that is the type of use case where it makes sense.
For example, maybe the NFC key that allows access to the kiosk is just a cheap thing given out for free to all the customers who bought a sandwich during the Thursday Special, and now when they come in they can use the kiosk to play a game and win coupons. And then suddenly your kiosk stopped working, because it did an OTA update. And your tech consultants billed a bunch of hours trying to find the problem, because there was no prior notice from google about the feature being shut down. Ouch.
The lesson: don't rely on OS features for your apps. Use only portable APIs.
The surprising thing about it to me is that google also claims to want to fight android fragmentation, but then they do this stuff that turns fragmentation into a freakin' religion for users. You can't take away my fragmentation, because it is what protects me from your other idiot decisions. Sorry google. It used to be different between us.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is certainly yet another case of something being shut down without useful notice to the users. Why should I consider using their new features when they might just get disabled? It seems to me at that point I'd rather side-load a free software app that can do the same thing, so that I can't have the rug pulled out from under me.
There is no double-standard, just a lack of comprehension on your part. I'd say "reading comprehension" except that you obviously didn't read about what the changes are.
A naturalized US Citizen, by definition, first applied to be a Resident Alien, also known as an immigrant. As part of that process, they filled out various applications. On those applications are included questions including a required list of all aliases.
US citizens who apply to have relatives receive immigration benefits also have to list their aliases on the application. For example citizens who marry a foreign national, or whose parents or children are foreign nationals, and apply for that person to receive immigrant status, must fill out an application.
Also, US citizens who work as translators or lawyers during the immigrant application process have a separate set of forms that they fill out, and that are stored in the same record-keeping system as the applications and related documents listed above.
OK, now understand that the Federal Register isn't listing the changes to the regulation; it is publishing the new set of regulations that include the changes. The part that you're getting upset over isn't even a change; it has been that way since 1945. What it says is that the system of record keeping that stores these files holds records relating mostly to foreign nationals but also to some US Citizens; specifically, the ones who have filed paperwork similar the types listed above. It seems natural that having received applications, the government would wish to store them. That is all that part says.
The changes are much deeper in, and they simply add "social media handles" to the list of alias types, and create a database slot (or paper record classification) for that information and any search results related to it. They already do as complete a search as they can on immigration applicants, including public information. That hasn't changed at all. They can already ask for social media information at the immigration interview if they want to, they only difference is that they would have to put the answers in with other uncategorized notes.
Then later after they become legal immigrants, they might apply to become citizens. Now they're one of the citizens who have the file with the answers from their earlier application process. Just as I am one of the citizens with a file in that system, because I applied for immigration benefits for a close relative. Why would my file get deleted, and when? Don't you see problems with deleting that sort of record?
Exactly. Fixed almost instantly. As soon as the bug was in the news, there was also an open solution in the news. When the eyes turned to the bug, it became shallow. And not before that, of course.
You don't seem to comprehend what a list of aliases is.
On my wife's immigration application, she had to list her maiden name as an alias.
On my application for her to receive immigration benefits based on my citizenship, I didn't list any aliases because my name didn't change when we were married.
If my father was filling out that sort of form, he'd have to list an alias because he's often completed official paperwork using the colloquial nickname for actual legal name.
There is no issue about having aliases, or not having them. The issue would be if you do have them, and fail to disclose them. Then you'd be dishonest, and not fit to immigrate to the United States.
You're just burbling words out but you don't actually say anything. If you think there is a Constitutional problem, you need to be able to say what that problem is. If the Constitution doesn't address it at all, that means there is no problem.
What part of the Constitution implies in any way that government records with your name must be destroyed if you're a citizen? How would we even have elections? How would people born on US Territories or military installations outside of a US State even get birth documentation?
You don't know, because you aren't a thinking being. Somebody told you to be upset by this, so you're upset by this. At least memorize some talking points that contain talking points.
For me, instead of day-dreaming I just clicked the link to the Federal Register, read the words, discovered the changes are small and not at all scary, and only relate to immigration applicants, and moved on to thinking about the real problems facing immigrants.
Don't just hear people tell you that something is scary and be scared without any verification. Especially when you only have to comprehend a couple thousand words in order to know for yourself if there is anything to be scared of.
You never looked up to America. You looked up to whatever mental image a magazine editor declared would be written for you. Same as today, with this very story.
Is there any particular reason why "social media handles" wouldn't be a type of alias? It seems rather obvious to me that it is indeed an alias.
What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship? It might help to realize that those aren't the new words, that part has been there since 1945 and isn't controversial. You're just jumping to wild conclusions prior to reading enough of the words to understand what the fuck that section even says.
You misunderstood. Some citizens have an A-file, is what that means. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the government to throw out all records about you if you become a citizen.
What this does has nothing to do with that. It was already true that an immigrant has an A-file, where the records relating to their immigration are kept. And also that citizens who sponsor immigrants also have a file in the same system, as do translators and other professionals who work with immigrants during the process.
What this does is add "social medial handles" to the list of examples of types of alias, creates a place in the database for search results relating to social media. When somebody is asking to move here, why wouldn't that be part of their background check? Why wouldn't social media handles be a type of alias? They're not doing a background check on the US citizen who is sponsoring an immigrant, they're doing the checks on the immigrant. Why wouldn't there be checks? Why wouldn't the database have a slot for the data?
I dunno, I already have an integrated search/address bar. You can configure it that way in about:config.
If you really want to be bug-compatible with IE on this one, surely there is an extension out by now for it? We can have whatever features we want, they don't have to all be good ones.
The argument was never, "If you build it, they will all turn their eyes towards it checking for bugs."
The idea is that if you know you have a bug, because you use the software, and there is only the programmer at some company that is even allowed to look at the code, then they might not fix it, and they might not even have time or interest to try. Hard problems are often going to receive (if you're lucky) a work-around unless you're paying extra to get it fixed. The same situation with free software, the worse the problem is the more people are looking at it, and the easier it is to solve.
There was never anything about fixing bugs before you know about them because free software is magic. That part you made up yourself.
OSS security isn't broken, it is powering most of the infrastructure. But that isn't in the news, because "trains ran on time, 700 days uptime" isn't news.
Actually, in Oregon a tricycle electronically limited to 15mph counts as a bicycle and can drive anywhere. Washington is probably the same.
I'd rather have that than his computer; actually I had two of them as a kid, both Timex/Sinclair 1000 models. I bought them at a yard sale from a graduating college student. It only had 2k of RAM, and booted to a BASIC editor. When the RAM filled up, it just froze. Oops, you wrote to much code. Start over.
In theory you could store programs on cassette tape, but in practice it required buying a special drive that cost more than the computer.
The "car" would still be useful today. He called it a "vehicle, not a car".
***
In Caithness, the seat of Clan Sinclair, there are no bays, protected inlets, or even sandy beaches to haul a ship up onto. There are rocks, with narrow cracks that are only large enough to create a churn. And yet, one of the two main exports from Caithness was fish. (the other of course was rocks) How did they manage it? They would build giant woodworks at the top these cracks in the rocks, and hang ropes down almost as a net; the incoming ship would sail directly into a small opening in the cliffs, and as long as there were people on duty to man the ropes they would be caught and lifted up the rim and secured.
Do not underestimate the ability of a Sinclair engineer to build some amazing machine that you have absolutely no possible use for anywhere else in the world. Before they were Scottish, they were Normans.
It sounds great to me. I won't use DRM'd content, but so what? If I did use it, surely I would want standardized browser delivery?
Also, it makes it easier for my browser to detect what the problem is, and give me a useful error message, instead of just what happens now and I just have a broken video player and I have to guess why.
"Blaming" in the sense that Gates thought that the software so horrible it would benefit overall from having a single key to reboot, so you could easily do it by accident.
If the software quality is low enough, it eventually becomes true.
I remember a time when I was young and my desk was so cluttered there was nowhere to set down my coffee when the app froze, and I had to three-finger with two fingers and my nose. Surely it is more convenient than putting random items in your mouth?
No, that's just moronic. If you don't want the records to exist, you have to prevent them from being created. Deleting them afterwards is just another idiot thing that will get you in more trouble.
Why the hell would you capitalize "Scotch whiskey" and not "Scotch whiskey glass?" You're not even being self-consistent. Why the hell would dropping the word whiskey change any of it?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Your software freedom is worth very little.
Mine is worth more.
How do you know what the default access gives you access to?
And how do you know that the storage is even writable to change anything?
Making random assumptions to imagine a situation where my example wouldn't work is not exactly attempting in good faith to think about it. The task in thinking about something is first to consider cases where it might be true, and work out from there.
Not every application has the same need for security. This could be used for things like a kiosk that only offers services to people with the key. I wouldn't implement it that way, but that is the type of use case where it makes sense.
For example, maybe the NFC key that allows access to the kiosk is just a cheap thing given out for free to all the customers who bought a sandwich during the Thursday Special, and now when they come in they can use the kiosk to play a game and win coupons. And then suddenly your kiosk stopped working, because it did an OTA update. And your tech consultants billed a bunch of hours trying to find the problem, because there was no prior notice from google about the feature being shut down. Ouch.
The lesson: don't rely on OS features for your apps. Use only portable APIs.
The surprising thing about it to me is that google also claims to want to fight android fragmentation, but then they do this stuff that turns fragmentation into a freakin' religion for users. You can't take away my fragmentation, because it is what protects me from your other idiot decisions. Sorry google. It used to be different between us.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is certainly yet another case of something being shut down without useful notice to the users. Why should I consider using their new features when they might just get disabled? It seems to me at that point I'd rather side-load a free software app that can do the same thing, so that I can't have the rug pulled out from under me.
There is no double-standard, just a lack of comprehension on your part. I'd say "reading comprehension" except that you obviously didn't read about what the changes are.
A naturalized US Citizen, by definition, first applied to be a Resident Alien, also known as an immigrant. As part of that process, they filled out various applications. On those applications are included questions including a required list of all aliases.
US citizens who apply to have relatives receive immigration benefits also have to list their aliases on the application. For example citizens who marry a foreign national, or whose parents or children are foreign nationals, and apply for that person to receive immigrant status, must fill out an application.
Also, US citizens who work as translators or lawyers during the immigrant application process have a separate set of forms that they fill out, and that are stored in the same record-keeping system as the applications and related documents listed above.
OK, now understand that the Federal Register isn't listing the changes to the regulation; it is publishing the new set of regulations that include the changes. The part that you're getting upset over isn't even a change; it has been that way since 1945. What it says is that the system of record keeping that stores these files holds records relating mostly to foreign nationals but also to some US Citizens; specifically, the ones who have filed paperwork similar the types listed above. It seems natural that having received applications, the government would wish to store them. That is all that part says.
The changes are much deeper in, and they simply add "social media handles" to the list of alias types, and create a database slot (or paper record classification) for that information and any search results related to it. They already do as complete a search as they can on immigration applicants, including public information. That hasn't changed at all. They can already ask for social media information at the immigration interview if they want to, they only difference is that they would have to put the answers in with other uncategorized notes.
Then later after they become legal immigrants, they might apply to become citizens. Now they're one of the citizens who have the file with the answers from their earlier application process. Just as I am one of the citizens with a file in that system, because I applied for immigration benefits for a close relative. Why would my file get deleted, and when? Don't you see problems with deleting that sort of record?
Exactly. Fixed almost instantly. As soon as the bug was in the news, there was also an open solution in the news. When the eyes turned to the bug, it became shallow. And not before that, of course.
You don't seem to comprehend what a list of aliases is.
On my wife's immigration application, she had to list her maiden name as an alias.
On my application for her to receive immigration benefits based on my citizenship, I didn't list any aliases because my name didn't change when we were married.
If my father was filling out that sort of form, he'd have to list an alias because he's often completed official paperwork using the colloquial nickname for actual legal name.
There is no issue about having aliases, or not having them. The issue would be if you do have them, and fail to disclose them. Then you'd be dishonest, and not fit to immigrate to the United States.
You're just burbling words out but you don't actually say anything. If you think there is a Constitutional problem, you need to be able to say what that problem is. If the Constitution doesn't address it at all, that means there is no problem.
What part of the Constitution implies in any way that government records with your name must be destroyed if you're a citizen? How would we even have elections? How would people born on US Territories or military installations outside of a US State even get birth documentation?
You don't know, because you aren't a thinking being. Somebody told you to be upset by this, so you're upset by this. At least memorize some talking points that contain talking points.
For me, instead of day-dreaming I just clicked the link to the Federal Register, read the words, discovered the changes are small and not at all scary, and only relate to immigration applicants, and moved on to thinking about the real problems facing immigrants.
Don't just hear people tell you that something is scary and be scared without any verification. Especially when you only have to comprehend a couple thousand words in order to know for yourself if there is anything to be scared of.
You never looked up to America. You looked up to whatever mental image a magazine editor declared would be written for you. Same as today, with this very story.
Is there any particular reason why "social media handles" wouldn't be a type of alias? It seems rather obvious to me that it is indeed an alias.
Don't whine for blue helmets, you have the EU to spank them if they were truly naughty.
But you're probably just lying.
What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship? It might help to realize that those aren't the new words, that part has been there since 1945 and isn't controversial. You're just jumping to wild conclusions prior to reading enough of the words to understand what the fuck that section even says.
You misunderstood. Some citizens have an A-file, is what that means. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the government to throw out all records about you if you become a citizen.
What this does has nothing to do with that. It was already true that an immigrant has an A-file, where the records relating to their immigration are kept. And also that citizens who sponsor immigrants also have a file in the same system, as do translators and other professionals who work with immigrants during the process.
What this does is add "social medial handles" to the list of examples of types of alias, creates a place in the database for search results relating to social media. When somebody is asking to move here, why wouldn't that be part of their background check? Why wouldn't social media handles be a type of alias? They're not doing a background check on the US citizen who is sponsoring an immigrant, they're doing the checks on the immigrant. Why wouldn't there be checks? Why wouldn't the database have a slot for the data?
I dunno, I already have an integrated search/address bar. You can configure it that way in about:config.
If you really want to be bug-compatible with IE on this one, surely there is an extension out by now for it? We can have whatever features we want, they don't have to all be good ones.
Try it with a dot on the end.
And remember, a domain name and a URI are different things.
The argument was never, "If you build it, they will all turn their eyes towards it checking for bugs."
The idea is that if you know you have a bug, because you use the software, and there is only the programmer at some company that is even allowed to look at the code, then they might not fix it, and they might not even have time or interest to try. Hard problems are often going to receive (if you're lucky) a work-around unless you're paying extra to get it fixed. The same situation with free software, the worse the problem is the more people are looking at it, and the easier it is to solve.
There was never anything about fixing bugs before you know about them because free software is magic. That part you made up yourself.
OSS security isn't broken, it is powering most of the infrastructure. But that isn't in the news, because "trains ran on time, 700 days uptime" isn't news.
It would have sold great on the west coast USA.
Actually, in Oregon a tricycle electronically limited to 15mph counts as a bicycle and can drive anywhere. Washington is probably the same.
I'd rather have that than his computer; actually I had two of them as a kid, both Timex/Sinclair 1000 models. I bought them at a yard sale from a graduating college student. It only had 2k of RAM, and booted to a BASIC editor. When the RAM filled up, it just froze. Oops, you wrote to much code. Start over.
In theory you could store programs on cassette tape, but in practice it required buying a special drive that cost more than the computer.
The "car" would still be useful today. He called it a "vehicle, not a car".
***
In Caithness, the seat of Clan Sinclair, there are no bays, protected inlets, or even sandy beaches to haul a ship up onto. There are rocks, with narrow cracks that are only large enough to create a churn. And yet, one of the two main exports from Caithness was fish. (the other of course was rocks) How did they manage it? They would build giant woodworks at the top these cracks in the rocks, and hang ropes down almost as a net; the incoming ship would sail directly into a small opening in the cliffs, and as long as there were people on duty to man the ropes they would be caught and lifted up the rim and secured.
Do not underestimate the ability of a Sinclair engineer to build some amazing machine that you have absolutely no possible use for anywhere else in the world. Before they were Scottish, they were Normans.
Your concept of "every website" is weak and pathetic.
Know that there is also quality data out there.
It sounds great to me. I won't use DRM'd content, but so what? If I did use it, surely I would want standardized browser delivery?
Also, it makes it easier for my browser to detect what the problem is, and give me a useful error message, instead of just what happens now and I just have a broken video player and I have to guess why.
"Blaming" in the sense that Gates thought that the software so horrible it would benefit overall from having a single key to reboot, so you could easily do it by accident.
If the software quality is low enough, it eventually becomes true.
I remember a time when I was young and my desk was so cluttered there was nowhere to set down my coffee when the app froze, and I had to three-finger with two fingers and my nose. Surely it is more convenient than putting random items in your mouth?
I'd go so far as to say, it was one of the few things he got right!
Of course if the software quality had made it unnecessary, that would be a whole different evaluation.
No, that's just moronic. If you don't want the records to exist, you have to prevent them from being created. Deleting them afterwards is just another idiot thing that will get you in more trouble.
They certainly vary their risk tolerance depending on the presence of birds such as scrub jays that will raid their caches.
Why the hell would you capitalize "Scotch whiskey" and not "Scotch whiskey glass?" You're not even being self-consistent. Why the hell would dropping the word whiskey change any of it?
Everything turns into shareware and you have to register your gmail every year or else you can only send 64 characters per message.