fly a gun inside
No, he's not asking questions, he's making insinuations. Like clockwork, in every single discussion on some new technology, there will always be at least one jackass trying to seem smart by suggesting that those idiot scientists missed something important. Every. Single. Time.
Functional sub-nanometer LED? Pfft. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
Throwing a flag, bullshit on the field. You see Billy there is a teeny tiny itty bitty problem with SSD that none of the companies will talk about...they shit themselves WITHOUT WARNING.
Now can a HDD shit itself without warning? Yes but frankly since the coming of SMART its pretty damned rare, instead you get what I had last week, with SMART screaming on boot and a sector scan showing sectors failing. Final result? I was able to get more than 95% of the user's data off the failing drive, with the only thing being lost that which was actually on the failed sectors themselves.
Let us compare that to an SSD failure, shall we? Oh look, all your shit is gone, NO WARNING and no chance in hell of saving anything...wow, sucks to be you huh? I'm sure you'll talk about "cloud backups" or some such bullshit, yeah with the data caps? Hope daddy gave you a trust fund because that shit isn't gonna work on your average residential line in the USA, and in a perfect world people would have backups...and I would have a billion dollars and be woken up every morning by my Alyson Hannigan sexbot who blows me while I eat steak in bed...ain't no perfect world Billy.
So until the SSD OEMs can create an SSD that gives you an "Oh shit I'm gonna die soon" warning all it takes is one person they know getting an SSD shit itself scenario before it turns off everybody they know. BTW if you can show me where I can get a 1Tb SSD for $60 I'd be grateful, as my customers (which are Joe and Jane average BTW) are going through data like crap through a goose, those little 64Gb and 128gb SSDs ain't gonna cut it. Have you SEEN the size of files the average camcorder puts out today? Camera? Hell we now have 41MP fricking smartphones dude, where all that data gonna go? Sure as hell ain't going to the cloud, not with TW/Comcrap merging, by the time the corp buyouts are done you'll be lucky if you get 50Gb a month and then ONLY to the shitty websites, gotta pay those dividends and bonuses ya know.
Seriously guys like you REALLY ought to have to work at a mom&pop shop at least one month every 5 years so that the corporate bullshit don't rot your brain. Sure when you have $100K+ storage budgets throwing several tens of thousands on fatty SSDs with RAID ain't no thing but that is about as fucking far from reality in the consumers space, which just FYI curbstomps corp when it comes to market size just FYI, than it is from here to Mars.
Phew, it's a good thing we have a random dude on the internet to tell us how worthless this is. Just think of how many hours could have been wasted by PhD-holding engineers and physicists if we didn't have Miamicanes to set them straight!
People want convenience and security concurrently. We know from our efforts at securing physical systems that this isn't possible. What makes you think securing electronic systems will be any easier for the end user, especially since physical harm is not a deterrent to an intruder?
To always be on our guard, to never take things for granted, to not trust even what seems like the most fundamental methods of communication, these are not things the (normal) human brain is wired for. Yet, that's what's required of security in the digital age. This just isn't something humans are evolutionarily prepared for. Our brains are wired to trust. They are made to accept others at their word. That is the mentality of a normal person.
Many years ago, people were tricked by door-to-door con jobs. Today, the same con men can hit every door in the world all at once. The only way to win is to not play. Or, in some cases, play with very low, inconsequential stakes.
I knew you would make that argument, people always do. But it's deceptive. You don't have a choice to buy most things in life. You cannot live in most places without a car, a phone, clothing, food, shelter, etc. You might have a couple different companies to choose from, but they'll all converge on a similar pricing model, because they're all trying to maximize profit in the same environment.
So what are you gonna do? Live off the grid? That's not a choice for the vast majority of people. If even 0.1% of people tried it, there would be a mass die-off. The world wasn't able to support more than a few million people before modern society, and it hasn't gotten any better. So what are the other 7,140,000,000 people going to do?
There are never multiple governments competing for the taxpayer's money, on any basis.
Are you fucking kidding me? Nearly every country in the world competes for taxpayer's money. Everyone is constantly offering tax breaks to this company or that, trying to get them to come build factories. Companies headquarter themselves in a PO box in a low tax nation. Millionaires constantly threaten to move, and occasionally do, in response to income taxes. Even regular people move out of high tax states like Massachusetts and California.
Seriously, you can argue opposing points if you wish, but don't just go making shit up.
Politicians, judges, and other people in power are rarely young. So it stands to reason that they're "behind the times", though it is outrageous that they don't educate themselves on the issues and technologies they're supposed to oversee and negotiate about.
The simple fact of the matter is politicians are idiots who don't understand anything beyond getting bought off by lobbyists, screwing the public, and spinning things so they get elected again. I firmly believe that less than 10% of the politicians in the world are actually intelligent people out to do the best for society as a whole; I believe the other 90% are power-tripping freakazoids who don't understand anything more than "I want to be the boss."
Most of them would take a role as dictator in a heartbeat if they were given the chance.
When I actually sat down and through about it, losing a fully configured Android phone is actually a big deal as it provides ready access to all kinds of accounts, including ones Google account. This could potentially allow the thief to engage in all kinds of malicious behaviour, some of which could have major implications beyond the scope of the theft.
Luckily for me it seems that the thief did the usual thing: Dumped the sim card, wiped the phone and switched it off. It's probably had it's IMEI changed by now and been sold on to some oblivious punter, possibly some oblivious punter in another country.
Still, the potential for serious issue is making me have second thoughts about replacing the phone with anything capable of doing much more than calling.
My question is this: Are there any serious solutions out there for Android that secure against theft?
By serious I mean solutions that go beyond the laughably easy to defeat "Find My Phone" and "Remote Wipe" options provided at present. Presently I'm thinking along the lines of:
- Full encryption of phone contents
- Some kind of "Travel Safe" mode that would lock the phone down and trigger a full wipe of not unlocked correctly (Including wiping the phone on next boot if not unlocked before being switched off/running out of battery).
So, any ideas?"
Ideally the people of Ukraine. It really should be for foreign powers to say. I mean you realize many government have provisions to handle ousting members and reforming, right? Particularly many parliamentary systems, but others as well. Even the US has something via the 25th amendment. The vice president and either a majority of the cabinet or congress can declare the president unable to discharge his duties and oust him (go read it if you want more specifics). It isn't a situation of "Well they were elected, now they are there and there's nothing you can do until the next election!" There are processes for removal/recall in pretty much all political systems.
I don't know anything about Ukrainian law, but really, it is for them to decide internally. Their courts need to rule on their law. It is really up to the US or Russia to come and say "No we don't think you should have done it that way, you do it our way instead."
And not shilling, go educate yourself. Vice News has some good coverage, split in 5 pieces, on it:
The most important things to note:
1) The Russian forces are not wearing insignias, or identifying themselves as Russian military. They either refuse to identify themselves at all, or identify themselves as being from the non-existent "Ukrainian Self Defense Force."
2) They Russian units are surrounding and/or capturing Ukrainian military installations. They are not moving to their bases, they are taking over Ukrainian bases. The Ukrainian commanders have been keeping things very cool, to avoid Russia being able to say they were provoked, so there hasn't been any violence, but it is a military attack on military targets, make no mistake.
3) Speaking of provocation, the Russian military has been trying it. They've been moving in and taking over Ukrainian bases, then withdrawing, only to do it again later. They are trying to goad the Ukrainian military in to firing on them.
4) Russia has been importing other non-governmental groups like Serbian Paramilitary forces to do, well who knows, but it isn't likely anything good.
So no, it is nothing like the US in Japan. Now if suddenly troops showed up in Maizuru and blocked off the military port there, troops wearing American uniforms, speaking English, armed with American weapons but wearing no insignias, no identifiers, and refusing to answer questions. If they blockaded the base, and then later went in and took it over, well ya, I'd be saying that the US was invading Japan and that it was clearly underhanded and illegit.
Having bases in a country doesn't mean free run to do as you please.
But then you can't really complain about their goal to have more powerful weapons.
The thing is we come back to the question of what really is a country, what makes a nation a nation? Well there can be two situations:
The first and oldest is just the ability to act as one, the strength such that nobody can realistically question your status. This is what you see with something like the US. Even if another nation doesn't like the US, or doesn't think it should be valid, they can't question that it is because they can't do anything about it. They can't attack or threaten the US's status in any way, the US is in control of its territory because nobody can say otherwise. Obviously this is the kind of thing that changes sometimes, and countries have indeed been conquered, reformed, etc, etc.
The other is international recognition and protection. There are a number of countries with little to no military, they couldn't hold off an attack from even a fairly small force, yet they are secure as countries. The reason is that they are recognized by international treaties, and thus the big boys, as being countries. They agree they are sovereign and won't interfere, and further often agree to defend them if someone does. Iceland is like that. They have no real military, but they are a NATO member, due to their strategic location. So they have some NATO bases, and the commitment of all NATO members to defend them if they are attacked.
Now, as this applies to Ukraine. They've been invaded by Russia. Russia has sent in troops, who are not wearing any identification, to take over Ukrainian military bases in Crimea. They really can't do much about it. If they fire on the Russian soldiers. Russia will just use that as an excuse to go all out on an invasion (Russian soldiers have been trying to provoke them in to firing) and Ukraine lacks the troops to push that back.
So they have two choices for independence: Either the international community steps in and helps, or they get more powerful weapons, the kind Russia doesn't want to fuck with.
Thus regardless of if you think the US or other countries have any specific obligation to them, that is the general state of things.
Seriously, it's time to rethink passwords because if you don't like that I write all this shit down in a spreadsheet that I print out and stuff in a binder, well, it beats the other guys post-its on their monitors.
NOT ON THE COMPUTER!
For work passwords, WRITE them down (pen) on a piece of paper and keep that piece of paper in your wallet.
For home passwords, WRITE them down and then that piece of paper like any other important piece of paper for your home.
If you do it on the computer you do not know that the system has not saved it to a temp file or something that a cracker will find.
People who will physically break into your house and steal your computer are a different threat than people who will break into your computer via the Internet. Protections against one will not help against the other.
No, they're always fair. If our premise is that it's "fair" for corporations to extract the maximum amount of wealth from people, then surely it is also "fair" for people to extract the maximum amount of wealth from corporations.
It, again, comes down to willingness to pay. It is fair for the companies to raise prices as high as possible without scaring off their customer base. It is fair for government to raise taxes as high as possible without scaring off their tax base.
Or maybe, just maybe, nobody there knew WTF they were doing? It was an online exchange for Magic:The Gathering trading ya know, dealing with cryptocurrency? Not exactly in the same ballpark as trading cards, not even the same sport.
The moral of the story? Just because a company gets huge does NOT mean they know WTF they are doing, or are even competent in the field, it just makes 'em big, that's all. I'm sure they were secure as hell when it came to Magic:The Gathering trading, why anybody thought that meant they were able to deal with cryptocurrency? fuck if I know.