I don't know how I feel about this. I understand fully why they didn't inform the government, but this was a huge thing, they probably still should have.
I guess there's one bit of information that would change my mind. Who was it that first broke the news about HeartBleed? Did Google just skip the government and go straight to the public? If they did that, then I'm right there with them. If they kept it secret, then I'm glad I just changed my passwords.
And that's where the controversies lie. They broke patent law by growing plants? The wind blew Monsanto seeds into your farm, don't you fucking dare harvest them. You legally purchase seeds (and I want to reemphasize legally purchase) and sort them out. Well, fuck you too.
How does patent law cover any of that? That's the problem. The patent law that allows this is fucked.
Maybe we know more about the Monsanto controversies then you give us credit for. Yes, Monsanto has a EULA for their seeds. Yes, they've sued people for having seeds blow into non-Monsanto farms. Yes, they've sued people for planting legally purchased seeds that were Monsanto's (but not bought from Monsanto).
Do a quick search on Techdirt for "Monsanto" and you'll find two pages of articles about them.
Mojang tweeted about this today. Their servers weren't compromised by this, but the load balancers from Amazon were. That suggests that the Amazon cloud was at risk and anything that used it should probably have their users change their passwords.
"But it's not the type of phrasing most people would have done."
I would have. Overly strong emotion and law making should not mix. When they do we get laws that do more harm then good. If I truly thought that someone was too emotional to do their job, I would say as such.
Speaking of too emotional, a lot of people are jumping on the statement saying it's sexist. But instantly jumping to the defense just because it's a man saying something to a woman is just as sexist. Show me something more and I'll be with you, but one sentence does not a sexist make.
Re: Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
I think AC might be talking about something more proactive. Maybe being able to claim that the uploader owns all copyright to the content during upload. That way, when something like this comes along, the counter notice has already been set and it would need to go to the next step.
I like that idea. "I attest, under risk of loss of account, that I own all copyright to the uploaded content or that I have readily available proof of license to the content uploaded." Should probably throw something in there about fair use, bu that's a gray area and should probably be handled in a case by case bases.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need new Operating System architectures
I'm a network administrator as I said, so I'm not the average user ether. I use a range of programs from video games to professional programs like ACT. I've only ever been asked for administrative access to run a program a hand full of times. Mostly with open source software.
I agree with AC up there, most things should not require administrative access. But what you think, what I think, what AC thinks doesn't matter. All that matters is how the system is going to be used, and that is how it would be used if Unix was king.
It's the human element that you hear about every now and then. People will use the system in this way. Changing the skin isn't going to change the people.
Re: Re: We need new Operating System architectures
The limited user thing in Windows is a copy of it's counterpart in Unix. It works the same, and provides the same annoyances. If Unix took over, the average user would just run as root or get into the habit of using sudo before everything.
That problem is with the end user, not the OS.
As a network administrator that runs Windows 2008 Terminal Services, UAC is not that big of a problem. If you're running software that requires administrative access just to run, you're probably running the wrong software. It'd be like software asking for the root password in Unix just to run. It shouldn't be happening.
"It just lets you get rid of it by reverting to a snapshot of the system prior to the presence of software"
I use the backup and recovery tools built into windows to do that now. I know it's in Windows 7, but I think it's been built into Windows since Vista, possibly XP. Hell, I do that when it's just time to start fresh, faster then loading the OS and drivers from CD.
There's also the System Restore function that I'm also fairly sure was built into XP, but that only does system files. That's another thing that's saved several computers from Viruses in my Tech support history. I don't like using it though, it potentially leaves the original, bad file on the disk where the Backup and Recovery tool overwrites the entire drive.