WHY OH WHY is this not being sold with a full OS that can run non-web-based apps? I mean, surely it wouldn't cost any more money to put Debian (or Ubuntu, or Mint, or whatever) on this thing and let us run both browser stuff *and* regular Linux apps, right? What's the rationale for limiting it?
You *can* put a different Linux distro on it, if you want. You have to flip an easily-accessible switch and, in the process, disable a nifty security feature to do so.
The rationale for ChromeOS is that it provides a verified boot environment. This feature gives it a park that seems to me like a decent selling point for corporate and government users who have to process sensitive information -- securities firms, medical records, social security numbers, etc. From their blog:
Our security model is rooted in two pieces of hardware that ship with every Chromebook: a custom firmware chip and a Trusted Platform Module (TPM). The custom firmware chip consists of two parts: a read-only firmware and a read-write firmware that can be updated. When you press the power button, our read-only firmware starts a process we call Verified Boot. It uses an embedded 8192-bit RSA public key to verify the cryptographic signature on the read-write firmware.
After the read-only firmware verifies and runs the read-write firmware, the latter performs a similar verification operation on the operating system kernel before running it. The operating system kernel will then continue the verification process as it loads all of the system software, like Chrome.
The goal of Verified Boot is to provide cryptographic assurances that the system code hasnâ(TM)t been modified by an attacker on the Chromebook. Additionally, we use lockable, non-volatile memory (NVRAM) in the TPM to ensure that outdated signatures wonâ(TM)t be accepted. To put this into perspective, the system does all this in about 8 seconds.
If you don't want to boot Google-verified software â" let's say you built your own version of Chromium OS â" no problem. You can flip the developer switch on your device and use the Chromebook however you'd like.
URL:http://chrome.blogspot.com/2011/07/chromebook-security-browsing-more.html?
Problem there is that evidence was (considering the source) almost certainly obtained through illegal action. (hacking) This cause three immediate problems. 1. most legal systems spoil evidence that has been obtained through illegal actions, 2. it may make assembling an unspoiled jury (that has not been exposed to the tainted evidence) difficult, and 3. it may make the same evidence, obtained through legal means, more difficult or impossible to bring to court.
Points 1 and 3 are not applicable to this context. Evidence is spoiled only when it is obtained through illegal means by the state. Failure to obtain proper search warrants, lack of reasonable cause, etc. However if the illegal means of publicizing the evidence was a private action, the state is off the hook.
For example: Burglar breaks into a house, stumbles across a torture/murder operation that had until that point not been suspected. Burglar can go the police, and that will give them sufficient probable cause to investigate. Burglar could even send them an anonymous letter, or, as was done here, simply discuss the details anonymously on a publicly-accessible forum. So long as the state follows proper procedure at the point it comes to their attention, the evidence will not be spoiled.
Tainted jury from publicity is certainly an obstacle, but that is what voir dire is for.
Rather than voting for the lesser of two evils (whether you consider that Dem or Rep), if you think they're both bad, vote someone else. It won't be a wasted vote, because you're supporting the party you support - so what if they don't get in?
So what happens? You get George W. Bush in 2000. Sometimes the lesser evil is, or certainly would have been in retrospect, a much, much better choice.
No, this is not "censorship". This is Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and they [Toyota] don't have a liquor license.
Not even close. More like Toyota voiding the lease and demanding the car back because the lease says "no entering car races" and you publicly state you're entering a car race with your leased Toyota.
Still not quite right; more like, Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement.
We're getting closer. It's more like Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race known for it's poor safety record for spectators, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement, but they don't want their brand associated with any negative press if any spectators get mowed down by their car.
AMONGST OUR IMPRESSIONS ARE SUCH DIVERSE ELEMENTS AS:
-inaccurate beliefs about license requirements
-poor safety records
-negative press
-mowing down of spec... I'll come in again.
I have yet to encounter a business which uses BitCoins as a means of payment. They must exist and I could look them up, but I have yet to encounter one as part of my regular Internet usage. None of the big businesses use it, none of the smaller businesses use it, even geeky sites don't use it. This makes BitCoins rather pointless compared to regular coin.
Well, SilkRoad seems a rather large exception to your claim, and it apparently runs on BitCoins. While that particular market apparently ranges from the questionably legal to the obviously illegal, its use of BC currency seems to me a strong indicator of the strength and utility of BitCoins as a currency.
It's similar to how the porn industry's adaption of a new technology is a good indicator of said tech's future promise.
we (as a society) obviously need kids and most people accept that facilitating the creation of families is a good thing.
If that's true, "most people" should reconsider their perspective. While we do need to have *some* children to perpetuate humankind, we don't need nearly as many kids as women tend to birth. A lot of our current global problems are a result of overpopulation.
Most people don't have children out of a sense of worldwide benevolence, but rather from either a self-interested instinct to simply procreate one's own genes, or an unexamined acceptance of a cultural tradition that procreating and raising a family is simply what a person is supposed to do.
Supposedly he as arrested for making false statements to his probation officer. Is that something that a normal person would be jailed for?
Not sure. Ask Martha Stewart.
According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), while this bill is well-intended, it conflicts with the duty of securities firms to supervise, record, and maintain business-related communications as required by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). They argue that if this bill passes in its current form, firms will be in the untenable position of having to violate either state law or their FINRA obligations. SIFMA argues that while they have no interest in accessing employee accounts that are used exclusively for personal use, the problem is that many people use the same account for both personal and business activity.
SIFMA contends that in order to protect investors, FINRA requires, among other things, that securities firms supervise, record and maintain their employees' business communications - including those disseminated on social media sites. They argue that these requirements are spelled out in several different FINRA rules and regulatory notices and denying securities firms access to social media accounts where business is being conducted directly conflicts with FINRA regulations. Additionally, they argue that it also puts customers at risk, as it will be much harder for firms to detect serious problems, including (1) misleading claims by an employee, such as the promise of an unrealistically high rate of return on investment; (2) insider trading, Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent activity; and (3) inappropriate conduct such as the selling of investment products that are not approved by the firm.
Furthermore, SIFMA argues that the bill does not address the increasingly common scenario where a financial services employee seeks and obtains firm approval to use his or her personal site for business use. In these instances, firms must have the ability to monitor, record, and retain these employee communications. Therefore, the opponents are requesting an amendment to carve-out financial service firms from the requirements of the bill which would allow them to access a personal social media accounts or devices of a financial services employee. They believe that this carve-out would allow them to comply with both this bill and FINRA regulations.
Draw your own conclusions about what this says of the interests of these particular Senators. While I believe the argument is actually describes a reasonable concern, it seems the easy approach is not to complicate the law by carving out a statutory exception for certain industries, but rather for these firms to adjust their policies accordingly. For example, they could both prohibit the use of personal personal networking accounts for business purposes, by making it a firing offense, and actively warn investors to contact them if any investment-related claims appear on the personal accounts of their employees.
Seems like these "be pro-business and reduce government red tape!" types are those most interested in creating complicated laws and regulations to suit their special snowflake needs. Don't complicate the law to fit your business model and thus push the burden onto taxpayers, SIMFA members; instead adjust your business model to comply with simpler laws and save us all the cost of the extra bureaucracy it would require to handle your exceptional use cases.
Love makes the world go 'round, with a little help from intrinsic angular momentum.
