We won't know if it is really a security feature unless somebody audits the code.
Code that is not a security feature, but thinks it is, is even more dangerous than an unpatched bug.
It doesn't seem controversial because you didn't understand it yet. Keep trying. When you understand the controversy, that's when you'll have started understanding the controversy.
You seem a little confused about the impact here. They're removing it because having it there makes things less secure, while promising security. That is dangerous.
What if it turns out the zombies are not actually an untapped source of natural wealth, but are actually impoverished by their condition, and already sold off everything of value?
What if the only things of value they have left are things they stole? Things they stole recently!
I don't doubt that Indiana has some politicians whose personal dream is to make their State rich enough to be a police state, or some other type of dystopia, but that's not the same thing as having a realistic plan to enact it.
Most of the wealth in Indiana is held by farmers. Farmers do not even pay their own way, they require tax breaks so that their workers, and people in other industries, can pay the taxes. The end result of that is that it doesn't matter what the State's plan is, they won't come up with lots of new money; their rich people don't pay, won't pay, and are the darlings of their local politics.
When you think you're going the "extra mile" for somebody else, but you're not actually part of their team, and they tell you to stop... That means you weren't helping.
Google did not follow their own guidelines, and this is obvious.
They don't have information about how many devices are updated. Their guideline is to wait 90 days unless most of the devices have been patched. Which sounds reasonable. But now they're trying to split hairs at the edge of that, and that doesn't work because Google has to rely on Epic Games for information about how widely the patch has been adopted. But they didn't do that; they're arguing about how the hair gets split, but they don't even have the information that would be needed to decide it in their direction. Epic Games is who knows if enough devices have been patched for it to be safe to release technical details.
If Google's security people can't even handle the analysis of the known information, if google can't even tell the difference between information that they have, and information that they don't have, then none of their security analysis should ever be trusted.
The only way that they can have both, long term, is to charge close to the rate that banks charge.
Otherwise, they can only get the early adopters, and they'll get an entrenched reputation for inflated prices. Which is very bad for Google, since Apple does so much better with the "of course I paid more than you" crowd.
Expect a whole wave of these types of stories over the next few years.
Your own comment makes exactly that mistake; you apply positive feedback instead of negative feedback, so instead of amplifying a signal you simply drive it unfailingly to one end of the spectrum.
You don't seem to make any attempt at all to check if the feedback you're describing makes sense in the conversation, or if it goes in the opposite direction than the context.
The Industrial Revolution didn't start in the 19th century, it started in the 18th century.
This isn't a real story. It is a story about an academic who selected some niche terminology to make normal stuff sound like something new. But a new phrasing is something new in the present, not something newly discovered about the past.
No, it would imply the opposite! If you were suppressing the news, and it worked, you'd have less deaths. Not more.
Instead, you're suppressing the news, and then you don't know it is happening to try to do anything about it. There is no feedback loop where if it gets worse, you'd have some sort of response.
You're willing to stand on your head to make it look right-side-up, but it isn't very persuasive. Maybe there is some third answer that is better, but you'll never be the ones to find it.
Unlike many States, most people in Florida were born somewhere else. Putting up a wall would obviously improve that situation for Florida but now we'd be stuck with the people who otherwise would have moved there. Just look at the news! We should be thanking Florida for being appealing to these people.
I remember another funny story from Texas, also a couple years ago, about a guy who witnessed a car-jacking at a gas station, and drew his gun and popped off a few rounds, but he accidentally hit the victim in the head. Then he gathered up the spent rounds, and fled the scene.
Of course, most of the media never even ran the story, and they're certainly not going to remember it when people say stupid stuff like you just did.
The obvious answer, since speech and guns are both protected rights, is to ban football.
We can't ban football games, because speech, but we can ban the actual game, and then in 50 years nobody will be interested in it enough to want to play Madden online, and there will never be another shooting exactly like this one.
Mass shootings are a bigger cause of death in Europe than in the US. Seriously, Europe, WTF is wrong with you people?! Oh, right, no freedom of the press, so you don't even know! LOLOLOLOL
No, no, no, I wasn't talking about my feelies, I was talking about the realities of the situation.
It doesn't matter what my feelies are. This didn't happen because of feelies, it happened because of ignorance, and it will be corrected on that basis.
The story is about a person getting arrested, not about people's feelies. That person will later be exonerated, and the cop will be retrained, because it doesn't matter what anybody's feelies are.
Duh, just search the news for the word "Philippines." They even elected one of the people doing it. Do zombies have rights? Most of the world says "Yes," Philippines says "No."
The phrase is "well regulated," not "well organized," and it means that they can pass a field inspection where they show they can march and maneuver as a unit. It doesn't mean they have to march as a unit all the time! It doesn't imply that whenever you see them, they're well regulated. They might also be at ease, or in some other condition.
It just means that the Government can ban people from bearing arms as a group, if they're not a well-regulated militia who can pass a military field review! They would still have individual gun rights.
Another thing is that the government has the right to take command of militias during war. If you get into the weeds of the Constitutional treatment of militias outside of the 2nd Amendment, Congress can regulate militias in almost any way they want, and the States may also, with the exception being that Congress can take control, in time of war or insurrection, any militia recognized at the State level. The other limits are about how they commission officers. So that is why, to be a militia you have to be "well regulated." It is expected that the purpose of any militia is to be ready to aid the State or Nation during time of war or insurrection. They can absolutely be out of control, and yet still be able to pass a field inspection.;) In fact, that has happened in this nation's history!
The only way the USA will ever get any control over their uncontrolled gun culture and the corresponding over reactions to these types of silliness
Bullshit, you totally misunderstand American intent.
Nobody is trying to get any "control" over sub-cultures. That is totally banned, you're not allowed to try. You can only participate in culture, and hope to influence, if you're trying to control it you're violating people's rights. To lose your rights is worse than to lose your life. So everybody will fight you on that, left, right, center.
The goal of "gun control" is to control some of the guns, not to control the culture, or the People. That is why, for example, when Democrats propose restrictions on rifle magazines that hold more than [some number] of rounds, they include an exception that lets you have it if you keep it stored at a shooting range, or if you own a shooting range and want to rent it to customers. The culture is totally protected.
That's also why when the idiots from the KKK want to have a parade, we give them the permit, and then give permits to protesters who line the sides of the road shouting insults at the KKK as they walk by! It is not anybody's place to "control" culture, but it is everybody's place to participate in the exchange of ideas! Last time it happened in my area, the KKK got almost 50 people to join their parade, and there were over 5000 people there to call them idiots and other things.
Slashdot Mirror
We won't know if it is really a security feature unless somebody audits the code.
Code that is not a security feature, but thinks it is, is even more dangerous than an unpatched bug.
It doesn't seem controversial because you didn't understand it yet. Keep trying. When you understand the controversy, that's when you'll have started understanding the controversy.
You seem a little confused about the impact here. They're removing it because having it there makes things less secure, while promising security. That is dangerous.
You seem a bit confused about the dangers.
What if it turns out the zombies are not actually an untapped source of natural wealth, but are actually impoverished by their condition, and already sold off everything of value?
What if the only things of value they have left are things they stole? Things they stole recently!
I don't doubt that Indiana has some politicians whose personal dream is to make their State rich enough to be a police state, or some other type of dystopia, but that's not the same thing as having a realistic plan to enact it.
Most of the wealth in Indiana is held by farmers. Farmers do not even pay their own way, they require tax breaks so that their workers, and people in other industries, can pay the taxes. The end result of that is that it doesn't matter what the State's plan is, they won't come up with lots of new money; their rich people don't pay, won't pay, and are the darlings of their local politics.
The last thing we need is additional layers of minimally-tested software promising to protect people.
When you think you're going the "extra mile" for somebody else, but you're not actually part of their team, and they tell you to stop... That means you weren't helping.
Google did not follow their own guidelines, and this is obvious.
They don't have information about how many devices are updated. Their guideline is to wait 90 days unless most of the devices have been patched. Which sounds reasonable. But now they're trying to split hairs at the edge of that, and that doesn't work because Google has to rely on Epic Games for information about how widely the patch has been adopted. But they didn't do that; they're arguing about how the hair gets split, but they don't even have the information that would be needed to decide it in their direction. Epic Games is who knows if enough devices have been patched for it to be safe to release technical details.
If Google's security people can't even handle the analysis of the known information, if google can't even tell the difference between information that they have, and information that they don't have, then none of their security analysis should ever be trusted.
Most of my android software comes from F-droid, and that's been true for years!
The only way that they can have both, long term, is to charge close to the rate that banks charge.
Otherwise, they can only get the early adopters, and they'll get an entrenched reputation for inflated prices. Which is very bad for Google, since Apple does so much better with the "of course I paid more than you" crowd.
Expect a whole wave of these types of stories over the next few years.
The game only involves shooting at them if it is animating them getting hit. That's the information that would make a difference, or not.
intelligent people
See also: Dunning-Kruger effect
Your own comment makes exactly that mistake; you apply positive feedback instead of negative feedback, so instead of amplifying a signal you simply drive it unfailingly to one end of the spectrum.
You don't seem to make any attempt at all to check if the feedback you're describing makes sense in the conversation, or if it goes in the opposite direction than the context.
The Industrial Revolution didn't start in the 19th century, it started in the 18th century.
This isn't a real story. It is a story about an academic who selected some niche terminology to make normal stuff sound like something new. But a new phrasing is something new in the present, not something newly discovered about the past.
No, you think I'm joking, because your politics places everybody in little tiny boxes.
I said it because it is true.
No, it would imply the opposite! If you were suppressing the news, and it worked, you'd have less deaths. Not more.
Instead, you're suppressing the news, and then you don't know it is happening to try to do anything about it. There is no feedback loop where if it gets worse, you'd have some sort of response.
You're willing to stand on your head to make it look right-side-up, but it isn't very persuasive. Maybe there is some third answer that is better, but you'll never be the ones to find it.
Guns don't kill people. Football tournaments kill people.
Unlike many States, most people in Florida were born somewhere else. Putting up a wall would obviously improve that situation for Florida but now we'd be stuck with the people who otherwise would have moved there. Just look at the news! We should be thanking Florida for being appealing to these people.
I remember another funny story from Texas, also a couple years ago, about a guy who witnessed a car-jacking at a gas station, and drew his gun and popped off a few rounds, but he accidentally hit the victim in the head. Then he gathered up the spent rounds, and fled the scene.
Of course, most of the media never even ran the story, and they're certainly not going to remember it when people say stupid stuff like you just did.
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
The obvious answer, since speech and guns are both protected rights, is to ban football.
We can't ban football games, because speech, but we can ban the actual game, and then in 50 years nobody will be interested in it enough to want to play Madden online, and there will never be another shooting exactly like this one.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Mass shootings are a bigger cause of death in Europe than in the US. Seriously, Europe, WTF is wrong with you people?! Oh, right, no freedom of the press, so you don't even know! LOLOLOLOL
No, no, no, I wasn't talking about my feelies, I was talking about the realities of the situation.
It doesn't matter what my feelies are. This didn't happen because of feelies, it happened because of ignorance, and it will be corrected on that basis.
The story is about a person getting arrested, not about people's feelies. That person will later be exonerated, and the cop will be retrained, because it doesn't matter what anybody's feelies are.
How would a data description format boost traffic?
Are people going to be all like, "hey it's AMP let me click on this link?"
A few ways: One would be to just use more overhead. Another would be to include additional advertising.
Probably not that hard to figure out which it is.
What kind of dystopic Utopia is this?
You came so close! You just have to combine the two ideas.
Dystopia.
Duh, just search the news for the word "Philippines." They even elected one of the people doing it. Do zombies have rights? Most of the world says "Yes," Philippines says "No."
The phrase is "well regulated," not "well organized," and it means that they can pass a field inspection where they show they can march and maneuver as a unit. It doesn't mean they have to march as a unit all the time! It doesn't imply that whenever you see them, they're well regulated. They might also be at ease, or in some other condition.
It just means that the Government can ban people from bearing arms as a group, if they're not a well-regulated militia who can pass a military field review! They would still have individual gun rights.
Another thing is that the government has the right to take command of militias during war. If you get into the weeds of the Constitutional treatment of militias outside of the 2nd Amendment, Congress can regulate militias in almost any way they want, and the States may also, with the exception being that Congress can take control, in time of war or insurrection, any militia recognized at the State level. The other limits are about how they commission officers. So that is why, to be a militia you have to be "well regulated." It is expected that the purpose of any militia is to be ready to aid the State or Nation during time of war or insurrection. They can absolutely be out of control, and yet still be able to pass a field inspection. ;) In fact, that has happened in this nation's history!
The only way the USA will ever get any control over their uncontrolled gun culture and the corresponding over reactions to these types of silliness
Bullshit, you totally misunderstand American intent.
Nobody is trying to get any "control" over sub-cultures. That is totally banned, you're not allowed to try. You can only participate in culture, and hope to influence, if you're trying to control it you're violating people's rights. To lose your rights is worse than to lose your life. So everybody will fight you on that, left, right, center.
The goal of "gun control" is to control some of the guns, not to control the culture, or the People. That is why, for example, when Democrats propose restrictions on rifle magazines that hold more than [some number] of rounds, they include an exception that lets you have it if you keep it stored at a shooting range, or if you own a shooting range and want to rent it to customers. The culture is totally protected.
That's also why when the idiots from the KKK want to have a parade, we give them the permit, and then give permits to protesters who line the sides of the road shouting insults at the KKK as they walk by! It is not anybody's place to "control" culture, but it is everybody's place to participate in the exchange of ideas! Last time it happened in my area, the KKK got almost 50 people to join their parade, and there were over 5000 people there to call them idiots and other things.