Posts by Ole Juul 2726 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Apr 2007
“What these statistics demonstrate is that training alone is not the answer", according to Pepper
I disagree. I think what this demonstrates is that human error is the biggest problem. More secure software can no doubt improve the situation but training is still at the top of what needs to be looked at. However, I imagine this fellow would rather avoid the training and buy more software instead.
@Allan George Dyer: I don't think turning off Javascript is enough. Brewster's Angle Grinder is right, it's a difficult situation. Look at this EFF web site and you will see that you are very identifiable. According to them 1 in 4 million. I recently just decided to spoof my OS and browser because it became clear to me that the number of people who would have the combination of just those two bits of information were less than the number of people in the world who would have my exact first and last name.
I don't presume to know the way but I don't think we need to assume that we will all be using the same browser and OS version in the future. It seems to me that TOR style browsers could become a norm. Perhaps the ISP could play a role. Of course there are downsides to such an approach but many of us are already using VPNs to overcome at least some of those. My feeling is that if I'm not logged into some place (like here) or using a bank, then nobody needs to be able to identify me. Don't you think that can be done?
Like using encryption to prevent snooping and filtering to prevent spam, in the end it's going to come down to users protecting themselves. I'm glad the EU privacy watchdog is looking at this, but encouraging browser developers to address the issue might be more productive.
. . . old, disabled, strapped for cash, or just really fucked off with the Microsoft and/or Apple softshit efforts available in the shops.
I fit every one of those and FreeBSD works for me in that regard. And, as per your suggestion, I looked at the Eldy link. I grew up using a typewriter, and Eldy is just too far beyond my GUI skill level. As for your "none computer literate students", perhaps it would be a good idea to help them learn, rather than putting effort into dumbing them down. Old, and/or disabled, people may be smarter than you think.
Luckily network manager's documentation includes an off switch. The bad news is it doesn't work.
I'm seriously hoping that Devuan dumps network manager as well. As time has passed, lots of things with Linux have gotten better, and quite a lot has gotten worse. Why can't we just stick with the better bits? I'll be trying the first Devuan version when it comes out. In the meanwhile, I'll stick with FreeBSD which is where I retreated when Linux started getting too irritating.
Word Press could help themselves greatly by having a way to disable commenting. I run several sites, neither of which need comments enabled, but to do that effectively I'm forced to use a 3rd party plugin.
Just don't enable them. That works here on two sites here. No 3rd party plugin is needed.
@ silent_count: Yes, there are lots of WordPress sites that makes one roll one's eyes, but we're talking about code here and as Trevor points out, what else are you going to use? WordPress in particular is very accessible to many people where more complicated solutions would not be, and roll your own definitely wouldn't.
What this makes me think about though is updates. I've run one particular very old versioned WP site for a number of years without issue or incident until a few months ago when the pressure to update finally got to me. Within days the spam was unbearable and the site got hacked. I'm not impressed. It seems like one has to divine which version to update. Every second, every third? If one updates every time it would seem like one is vulnerable half the time, whereas if one never updates one is either not vulnerable or vulnerable all the time. How does one win the update game?
I would be more than happy to pay for access to 'journalism' sites, (hereafter called 'deadstream' media), if they accurately reported the news, rather that exercises in how many ways to lie and how to help fellow liars get elected..
So ignore the ones that don't fit your wishes and only go to the ones that do. There are indeed a few good ones out there. Why not send them five bucks once in a while? That would help them become more prominent.
I dunno, why not find out, rather than being indignant and basically attacking teachers for making use of the internet as a teaching tool?
I'm not sure why you would think that I'm attacking teachers for making use of the internet as a teaching tool. I think it's a great resource and hope it becomes available to all. I think the part you missed is my (perhaps subtle to you) reference to bandwidth and resources. I've seen what the school system is doing in that regard and it is often resource hungry fluff in relation to what is being taught, and perhaps learned. My point (since you didn't get it the first time) is that it would be more beneficial to get bandwidth to those that don't have any, as opposed to getting more bandwidth to those that already have some.
Rather than placing internet service under public utility rules, thus requiring the monopolies to extend universal coverage, the FCC opts to increase the tax on the users. This reinforces wealth redistribution in America, flowing from bottom to top.
Have an upvote. That is exactly what is going on.
And from the article:
"Still, 63 per cent of public schools – over 40 million students – don't have broadband connections to the building capable of taking advantage of modern digital learning," the FCC noted
What is "modern digital learning"? Why does everything to do with digital learning need so much bandwidth? Perhaps so everybody in the class can watch Youtube tutorials and the teachers can relax and go home early? I think the teachers need some "digital learning" and the FCC needs to focus on getting a good and stable internet everywhere.
@P.Lee, I didn't give you a thumbs down, but like the next poster I think you missed the point which is the lack of education of the teachers. Using on-line resources like Wikipedia can be well accomplished using even dialup. You're right though about the disingenious focus on layout and the like.
Nevertheless, I think that the pertinent question would rather be, why don't these people have an internet connection of any kind? Slow, or otherwise. To me the explanation would likely be one of two. One, the incumbents will not spend money on getting a connection to less profitable areas. Or, two, people are not educated in the ways of affording a connection. Those that have only POTS available are, of course, not easily served. But those that have cable or DSL or rural wireless available in the area, can drop their $30-50 per month telephone and put it on an internet connection with very little, if any, additional cost per month. This works for my slow rural wireless connection where I'm using world class VoIP from Callcentric, so I'm not talking theory here.
To me the issue that should be addressed by the Lifeline program is actual access being provided by the Telcos. Internet cost in existing areas is probably a red herring. These users likely already have a redundant telephone bill (as described above) or perhaps an addictive attachment to an even higher priced TV access which they are prioritizing over internet access.
Seems though that they want to have a "fast lane" or a "heavy weight" lane for heavy bandwidth but at some level there's the fear that the higher paying clients will be given preference at the expense of the lower paying clients..
It's hard to tell exactly what people's fears really are. I don't see a problem with anybody being given preference as long as I can still get what I paid for with my lower payment, in terms of bandwidth. My worry is that there isn't enough available. The higher paying fast lane types will be taking it all, and I'll be sitting on the ramp waiting to get in the line. I think this is a real worry because the incumbents haven't shown themselves to be particularly gleeful about the prospect of building more infrastructure.
I say move to a model where a home can purchase a higher bandwidth service if they want, but regardless of that the cable company treats all content the same within the bandwidth that is available.
A home can only purchase a higher bandwidth if there is one on offer. In other words, much of North America is not going to have an adequate modern connection. For example, the Canadian Government has defined broadband as 5mbps, and are wishing for everybody to have that, but it's not happening yet and it doesn't look likely to happen any time soon. So, how is your model going to address that? Things don't just develop out of thin air.
Another problem is that with the way the big guys work right now, they want to charge more for a commodity that is in demand than spend money to provide more of it.
Actually, if you want to put ethics to one side then piracy is probably a net positive for the Swedish economy, since most of the things being pirated would be American produced and not paying for it would mean more money staying in Sweden to be spent on other things, rather than going to US companies.
Exactly. This is done all the time. The state of California gets electricity from Canada and refuses to pay because they prefer to spend the money on other things. Keeping money from going out of a country is often considered good economics. There are freetards at all levels. Frankly, I think singling out file sharing borders on bizarre.
. . . ask yourselves what benefits the investment will make to your customers?
If you have to ask, you may as well get one. Or you could just say no . . . and still not ask. That's probably easier.
Benefits? It makes a handy way to filter customers based on their typing skills. I can imagine telling customers over the phone "just go to salesdepot-dot-Antidisestablishmentarianism" Seriously, the only way to "get these new TSL's" is to imagine a room full of marketing guys just buzzing with fantastic new ideas.
"Ive compared results and not seen much difference between the two,"
That's not my experience. I've been doing the same searches every day these weeks because we've got municipal elections and I've got some new sites up. So, I just now did similar searches, and variations, on Bing. There's not much there compared to Google. I think part of the problem is that Bing seems to take a year to gather all the links. I say that because things that have been up for a couple of years seem to show up just fine. Google picks up new sites in a day or so without any effort on my part, and updates sometimes show up within minutes. In my opinion, and probably most people's, that's better than waiting a year when it comes to things like news and elections.
I'm not certain where I'll be with IPv6, but I can tell you that my static IPv4 address is consistently identified as being over 100 miles from here, and not even in the same place all the time. Someone would still have to subpoena ISP records to find me.
Crime does not have a universally accepted definition. In this case one can argue that an "offense" was committed, but against who? I certainly don't feel like I was offended, and neither was the society that I live in. Perhaps you're talking about some other special interest group?
From the Windows teknikal department. They used to call daily. Yes, daily! You'd think they'd cross me off the list at some point.
There seemed to be no stopping them from talking. Not having a "windows key" (I have a custom keyboard) didn't stop the spiel. Telling them I run BSD (which I do) didn't stop the spiel. Telling them I'm very familiar with what goes in and out of my internet connection, didn't stop the spiel. Only once did I get even a bit of a slowdown in the spiel. One time when they told me my computer was sending out spam, I answered "yes, I know". He restarted and told me again. "Yes, I know, that's what I do for a living". Then he got the superviser who went over the spiel again, and again I told him again in my most matter-of-fact voice that all was fine here as far as I was concerned - a man has to make a living. That, finally got him to give up with a "fine, carry on then." Unfortunately, they still called back the next day. Zombies!
And at the expense of missing content.
The article itself is garbage. Comparing the highest calorie use of one group against the lowest calorie use of another is nonsense. They should have compared low to low and high to high. At the very least they could have used averages.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
