> Yes, when it comes to face scanners at the airport. You’re standing in front of a government camera for a driver’s license or student id and it can (and likely will) take the same image data that the TSA cameras do.
This is wrong. The TSA cameras are steroscopic and capture significantly more detail.
Additionally, there is no oversight or information given about how that data will be used, sold, how long it will be kept for, etc.
If you want to be entirely complacent that's your choice. But it isn't 'silly' for those of us that understand what's going on to oppose it, and it's disingenuous to easy because we have drivers licenses there is no reason to oppose it.
> the Wikimedia foundation does (find ways to spend the money and keep asking for more),
I remember reading an article about that, how Jimmy Wales was driving super expensive sportscars around and such - it made me pretty much resolve to never donate to them. Ever.
Not withstanding the super aggressive please for cash every September or whenever they do it.
> I remember reading an article about that, how Jimmy Wales was driving super expensive sportscars around and such - it made me pretty much resolve to never donate to them. Ever.
What is the connection between Jimmy Wales’ personal spending choices and your decision to never donate to the Wikimedia Foundation? As far as I can tell, Wales is not paid by the Wikimedia Foundation.
You don't see a problem with someone leading a 1%er lifestyle asking for donations from people substantially less well off while being misleading about what those donations are used for?
What is the connection between Jimmy Wales’ personal lifestyle and the Wikimedia Foundation? Wales is not and has never been paid by the Wikimedia Foundation. He is not fundraising for himself.
Is your issue that he makes his personal wealth from some other source, and doesn't transfer enough of it to Wikipedia? If so, do you have the same views for board members of other non-profits?
Maybe it's just accusations, although I remember reading articles as well. Although maybe if Jimmy was more transparent about where his wealth came from, and maybe if Wikipedia didn't disingenuously and constantly beg for money despite having a surplus, I'd be less skeptical.
What I know is that an awful lot of people put very high standards on those working for charity or for the general good, where anything perceived as personal indulgence is treated as hypocrisy, and used to denigrate the overall goal. (These same people often don't care what greedy money grabbers do, since they aren't being held to the same standards.)
What I don't know is if you are being that sort of a person specifically about Wales and Wikipedia, or about any sort of charitable organization, or if your disdain has some other reason.
I wasn't able to find a mention of Wikipedia using their money to buy him a sportcar. The link you pointed to mentions "Jimmy Wales was accused by former Wikimedia Foundation employee Danny Wool of misusing the foundation's funds for recreational purposes." then says "Brad Patrick denied any wrongdoing by Wales or the foundation, saying that Wales accounted for every expense and that, for items for which he lacked receipts, he paid out of his own pocket"
Is the article you read based on that accusation?
If his money does not come from the Wikimedia Foundation, why would it affect things? Like, if he charges $80K speaking fees and gets invited to 4 of those talks per year, then he could easily rent an expensive sport car for a few days.
As I wrote, there are a lot of rich people who are on non-profit boards. They aren't transparent about all of their funding sources. Are you equally dismissive of them as well as their non-profits?
If you don't like their begging ads, don't give them money. The same holds for your local public radio station, which will have fund raising even when they have a surplus.
FWIW, Wikipedia is not currently asking me for money, even when I visit in a new private window.
Is Jellyfin an all in one solution for media management and streaming?
I normally just use transmission and serviio (vastly superior to Plex IMO), and only recently found out about sonarr, radarr, etc.
Really though, is there not any 'all in one' solution, instead of all these various programs chained together? I get keeping the serviio bit separate, and maybe the torrent client, but the rest could easily be integrated into one app.
Microsoft has a very solid point here. MS has wanted to kick AV vendors out of kernel space for a long time because it isn't necessary, and can lead to the type of incident we are talking about here.
MS provides a userspace interface[0] for AV vendors to do what they need to do, but they can't be forced to use it.
So yes, due to EU regulations, AV vendors can still play in kernel space, and can bring much of the world to a halt when they make a mistake as a result.
- could have kicked AV vendors out of kernel space, including themselves, ensuring level playing field (which is the point of EU regulations). But then they couldn't sell their product that's "isn't necessary".
- could have created other, less critical APIs to use for everyone
- could have enabled anything mandated by the EU only for the EU market
If they provide a userspace interface but use their own set of kernel accesses for Windows Defender then they are not competing fairly, don't you think? They just need to make Windows Defender use those userspace interfaces as well and all is good :)
or, the users could kick CS and McAfee out of the kernel space themselves - by not using those products or features that require these dodgy kernel modules.
the CTOs and engineering staff are the ones in control of their machines, not M$. or at least they should be. problem is that they thought they were solving a problem by installing this kind of software, but instead were simply handing over their responsibility to a 3rd party that was totally irresponsible - and certainly doesn't accept it. they took a compliance short-cut with "box checking" software. that's where the problem lies - lack of responsibility and engineering rigor in the IT orgs.
If microsoft is content with being out of kernel space why don't they just do that and compete with their own AV on the same API? Oh, they want kernel level access with their AV and want nobody else to have it? Oh. Maybe no, they don't have a solid point.
The real cause of mistake was a single point of failure where there was no A/B testing, no gradual deployment nothing. To say that banning AV from kernel would prevent this is not just hilarious but disingenuous and shows complete lack of knowledge of operations and deployment. There's no golden rule which says that Windows cannot make these errors.
That is a solution, but not the cause. The cause is not having a culture that evaluates failure scenarios. From what I have read:
* Updates are not vetted or sanity checked.
* Updates are not slow-rolled to production.
* Updates are not signed to prevent corruption or alteration.
* Updater does not sanitize or validate inputs.
* Updater does not have a reversion process to previously known good position on faulty boot.
* Updater should mark itself as Unnecessary For Boot on faulty boot at some point.
Finally, its high adoption means it creates a mono-culture. There should be another version built independently where one is running on a machine and another sits in a ready state. If there is a fault in one, it becomes disabled and the second takes over. Good ol' NASA style redundancy.
> If their game runs on my machine, then cheating is my prerrogative. v
Sure.
However, due to the nature of how these games work, cheating cannot be prevented serverside only.
So, if you want to play the game, you have to agree to install the anti-cheat because it's the only way to actually stop cheating.
The *only other alternative is to sell a separate category of gaming machines where users wouldn't have access to install cheats, using something like the TPM to enforce.
I don't have to agree to a thing. They're the ones who should have to accept our freedom. We're not about to sacrifice our power and freedom for the sake of preventing cheating in video games. Not only are we going to play the games, we're going to impose some of our terms and conditions on these things.
This is wrong. The TSA cameras are steroscopic and capture significantly more detail.
Additionally, there is no oversight or information given about how that data will be used, sold, how long it will be kept for, etc.
If you want to be entirely complacent that's your choice. But it isn't 'silly' for those of us that understand what's going on to oppose it, and it's disingenuous to easy because we have drivers licenses there is no reason to oppose it.