If not for that, they'd have incorporated some kind of signing mechanism so that the hotel's door readers can easily verify that a given card actually belonged to that hotel prior to processing any privilege tokens
Of course, but this vastly increases the cost of the locks themselves, which will have been made as cheap as they can possibly be. In real life, the security of the hotel's room locks isn't that important to the hotel.
Your argument doesn't make sense, unless you are willing to hold jurors to account for their verdicts.
A juror is the individual tasked with listening to the evidence, and making the final decision, thus the final decision rests with them. Jury nullification isn't a special case of justice, it's the whole, entire process. If a juror cannot be held to account for their decision, which is a principal that I assume you support, then "jury nullification" is an inevitable consequence of that principal.
If it runs the same linux kernel and internet services that people run on their public network, it's going to be comparatively hard to attack (DoS attacks excluded, of course).
A bold claim. Excluding DoS seems like a bit of a baseless get-out clause. Maybe it'll be discovered that by mounting a DoS attack, differences in timing of responses will reveal what's running on the machine, and by crafting requests to other services at the same time, educated guesses as to the contents of secret key might be able to reduce the search space sufficiently to break into your network.
Or maybe it'll just turn out to be some buffer overflow bug in some crappy piece of code written in the world's most dangerous programming language, which just happens also to be the one that Linux is written in.
I was wondering whether or not you'd be interested in applying for a job here? All of the developers we have, and they number in the hundreds, appear unable to write code without also introducing bugs, and that's despite the fact that we review alot of it, and have unit and automated tests.
We've spent alot of time trying to understand exactly why human beings, when tasked with writing a series of instructions for unthinking machines, appear incapable of doing so without doing so wrongly. Worse, they don't appear to be able to predict a future in which previously unimagined software flaws are taken advantage of. Some of them didn't even foresee the cache-based attacks that leak kernel memory. Honestly, if I had my way, I'd fire the lot of them, and just get you to write everything. We'd probably have to pay you their combined salary anyway, since you never write bugs, making you an extremely valuable human being.
Or, alternatively, you're just a troll/dickhead. It's difficult to tell from your comments.
Of course we don't have a bug tracker, we just write them down on this piece of paper I have here. It's just under this cup, next to the toy car.
How well is any piece of home hardware sitting on your local network going to withstand a "well-engineered attack". Not very well at all, that's now. If someone decided they wanted to knock you off the internet, and they happened to know your home router's public IP, they could do so without any difficulty. A networked home device does not need to withstand anything of that sort, anymore than your front door does, especially if it only communicates with other devices on your LAN, like those colour changing light bulbs do.
In real life, encryption software is extremely complex, and flaws in complex shipped software are found regularly. Your quote is irrelevant, because error-free software of any meaningful complexity does not exist, and so if you ship software that you can't update, a flaw in it will be found eventually, and whatever encryption it contains will be broken.
Well, to nitpick, Nyquist's theorem applies only to signals of infinite length, and in fact a 20kHz signal can't be perfectly reproduced with a 40kHz sampling frequency because you lose phase information on any finite signal.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that this actually adds up to a perceptible loss of information in the signal, or that 'transients' are in any way different to high frequency signal components, or that Vinyl is superior. I'm just nitpicking, because it's Friday afternoon, and I've nothing better to do.
That's why C++, for one example, is higher-level and therefore easier to use but slower
Both of your statements are the opposite of the truth. Well, apart from the one about it being higher-level, which might be true. It's not easier to use than C, and it's not slower.
And yet, there's a google tracking javascript snippet in practically every website I visit, and mysteriously enough, whenever I visit a site, I'm immediately bombarded with ads from the site. I fail to see how that doesn't fall under the same umbrella. We quite obviously are the product. Or is gmail free just from the goodness of google's heart?
Apple has been caught tracking the GPS coordinates of iPhones, tracking every cell tower they see, every wifi SSID they encounter, every address of nearby Bluetooth devices.
From which they don't track your location - they even randomise your Wifi MAC address so that others can't track you either. They do turn this data into a database of SSID vs. location, which my iPod touch (which has no GPS) is able to determine its location with astonishing accuracy.
Why does everyone want to hate Apple so much, when there are companies that actually are tracking you, and selling this data to the highest bidder, while all Apple are doing is trying to make nice consumer electronics that people want to buy? It doesn't make sense to me.
Then this is the part I fail to understand. You can't have paid the App Store, because they won't sell such a thing, according to you, so you must have purchased access through some other means, and must also have downloaded some app to access whatever-it-is you're looking for. If it's a 18+ "chat app", it must be accessing online content of an 18+ nature, which isn't restricted by the App Store, otherwise it would be hard to download a browser.
Anyway, no details were given, which I guess is fair enough, but it does make it difficult to really understand exactly what your situation is.
One of those unsubstantiated 'problems' with Apple products, and one that sounds very much like a bug in some dodgy app you bought, and is highly unlikely to be anything to do with Apple at all.
Also, it has precisely, exactly, zero to do with privacy. Freedom, sure. But privacy, nope.
Neither Apple nor Facebook has treated its customers or others well in the past.
Look, this is total nonsense. Firstly, and importantly, Facebook's customers are not its users, they are its advertisers, and Facebook probably treats them pretty well. Facebook's users are its raw materials, which is treats appallingly, which is presumably what you meant, and nobody could possibly disagree with you. From those 'experiments' they ran wherein they tailored people's newsfeeds to determine whether or not bad news made you feel bad (Spoiler Alert: it does), to the way in which they play fast & loose with your private data, they are basically a pretty evil company.
But people choose to use it. I use it. I keep in touch with people, and with what's going on in my local community, and the plain fact is that there's no competitor for this. They may be in the future, and hopefully (doubtful, though!) it'll be something open, and collective, and not driven by advertising, and maybe we'll just have to suck it up and pay for it.
Now, explain to me how Apple has treated its customers in an even remotely comparable way. Apple make computers, and an operating system, and sell it to people. They also sell music, and telephones. They don't sell the cheapest computers, but they are nowhere near as expensive as people make out, and come with software that's far superior to anything else (Ok, that might be a matter of opinion...), and offer free OS upgrades for longer than any other company (Ok, other than "Linux", but that doesn't run Photoshop, so it's out).
One day, I might need to switch back from Apple devices, but the 2012 macbook pro I'm typing this on looks almost brand new. How am I being treated badly by Apple again?
Well, that's partly true. The newer designs for the magsafe kind of resolved that, and in any case, if your laptop is sitting on bed covers, it's likely to start overheating.
The real problem with the magsafe is that the connectors get kinda dirty or corroded or whatever, and eventually fail to provide power. Plus, of course, having a single connector style that can provide literally everything your machine needs - power, ethernet, display, keyboards, usb, etc, etc, etc - is very obviously a fantastic thing. That this connector is quite new is a bit irrelevant. It won't be new for long, and soon enough it'll be the only thing. It sure beats the shit out of micro USB, which isn't even capable of providing enough power to an Android tablet without the battery being drained.
Folders have always been an awful way to organise things, they were just easy to implememt in filesystems, and so weâ(TM)ve been stuck with them for decades. Labels, filters, searches and automatic photo analysis is so much better, itâ(TM)s not even funny.
It's an issue of liability. If a human-controlled vehicle hits someone, or otherwise causes an accident, someone directly involved in the situation is held to account, and the world moves on.
If the accident turns out to be the fault of a car component, like the brakes, or the steering, or the car's AI - which basically falls into the same safety category - then the situation is very, very different. Expect to see some protracted legal battles over exactly who should shoulder the blame - all I can say is I'm very glad not to work directly on any safety-related software.
or any work requiring any real level of intelligence- but rather just making smarter life decisions.
Congratulations on your success - but this sentence is clearly contradictory, and you are obviously much more intelligent that you give yourself credit for.
It was changing your filesystem from the old broken one, to the new hotness. Seems fair that it might take a while.
And if you've got a Linux update that includes an updated kernel, and a new filesystem, and automatically converts your old filesystem for you, without even rebooting, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you work in a place that values security. A hotel is not such a place.
If not for that, they'd have incorporated some kind of signing mechanism so that the hotel's door readers can easily verify that a given card actually belonged to that hotel prior to processing any privilege tokens
Of course, but this vastly increases the cost of the locks themselves, which will have been made as cheap as they can possibly be. In real life, the security of the hotel's room locks isn't that important to the hotel.
Your argument doesn't make sense, unless you are willing to hold jurors to account for their verdicts.
A juror is the individual tasked with listening to the evidence, and making the final decision, thus the final decision rests with them. Jury nullification isn't a special case of justice, it's the whole, entire process. If a juror cannot be held to account for their decision, which is a principal that I assume you support, then "jury nullification" is an inevitable consequence of that principal.
If it runs the same linux kernel and internet services that people run on their public network, it's going to be comparatively hard to attack (DoS attacks excluded, of course).
A bold claim. Excluding DoS seems like a bit of a baseless get-out clause. Maybe it'll be discovered that by mounting a DoS attack, differences in timing of responses will reveal what's running on the machine, and by crafting requests to other services at the same time, educated guesses as to the contents of secret key might be able to reduce the search space sufficiently to break into your network.
Or maybe it'll just turn out to be some buffer overflow bug in some crappy piece of code written in the world's most dangerous programming language, which just happens also to be the one that Linux is written in.
I was wondering whether or not you'd be interested in applying for a job here? All of the developers we have, and they number in the hundreds, appear unable to write code without also introducing bugs, and that's despite the fact that we review alot of it, and have unit and automated tests.
We've spent alot of time trying to understand exactly why human beings, when tasked with writing a series of instructions for unthinking machines, appear incapable of doing so without doing so wrongly. Worse, they don't appear to be able to predict a future in which previously unimagined software flaws are taken advantage of. Some of them didn't even foresee the cache-based attacks that leak kernel memory. Honestly, if I had my way, I'd fire the lot of them, and just get you to write everything. We'd probably have to pay you their combined salary anyway, since you never write bugs, making you an extremely valuable human being.
Or, alternatively, you're just a troll/dickhead. It's difficult to tell from your comments.
Of course we don't have a bug tracker, we just write them down on this piece of paper I have here. It's just under this cup, next to the toy car.
How well is any piece of home hardware sitting on your local network going to withstand a "well-engineered attack". Not very well at all, that's now. If someone decided they wanted to knock you off the internet, and they happened to know your home router's public IP, they could do so without any difficulty. A networked home device does not need to withstand anything of that sort, anymore than your front door does, especially if it only communicates with other devices on your LAN, like those colour changing light bulbs do.
No, you're wrong.
In real life, encryption software is extremely complex, and flaws in complex shipped software are found regularly. Your quote is irrelevant, because error-free software of any meaningful complexity does not exist, and so if you ship software that you can't update, a flaw in it will be found eventually, and whatever encryption it contains will be broken.
Well, to nitpick, Nyquist's theorem applies only to signals of infinite length, and in fact a 20kHz signal can't be perfectly reproduced with a 40kHz sampling frequency because you lose phase information on any finite signal.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that this actually adds up to a perceptible loss of information in the signal, or that 'transients' are in any way different to high frequency signal components, or that Vinyl is superior. I'm just nitpicking, because it's Friday afternoon, and I've nothing better to do.
That's why C++, for one example, is higher-level and therefore easier to use but slower
Both of your statements are the opposite of the truth. Well, apart from the one about it being higher-level, which might be true. It's not easier to use than C, and it's not slower.
And yet, there's a google tracking javascript snippet in practically every website I visit, and mysteriously enough, whenever I visit a site, I'm immediately bombarded with ads from the site. I fail to see how that doesn't fall under the same umbrella. We quite obviously are the product. Or is gmail free just from the goodness of google's heart?
Apple has been caught tracking the GPS coordinates of iPhones, tracking every cell tower they see, every wifi SSID they encounter, every address of nearby Bluetooth devices.
From which they don't track your location - they even randomise your Wifi MAC address so that others can't track you either. They do turn this data into a database of SSID vs. location, which my iPod touch (which has no GPS) is able to determine its location with astonishing accuracy.
Why does everyone want to hate Apple so much, when there are companies that actually are tracking you, and selling this data to the highest bidder, while all Apple are doing is trying to make nice consumer electronics that people want to buy? It doesn't make sense to me.
I explicitly paid for such a feature.
Then this is the part I fail to understand. You can't have paid the App Store, because they won't sell such a thing, according to you, so you must have purchased access through some other means, and must also have downloaded some app to access whatever-it-is you're looking for. If it's a 18+ "chat app", it must be accessing online content of an 18+ nature, which isn't restricted by the App Store, otherwise it would be hard to download a browser.
Anyway, no details were given, which I guess is fair enough, but it does make it difficult to really understand exactly what your situation is.
One of those unsubstantiated 'problems' with Apple products, and one that sounds very much like a bug in some dodgy app you bought, and is highly unlikely to be anything to do with Apple at all.
Also, it has precisely, exactly, zero to do with privacy. Freedom, sure. But privacy, nope.
Neither Apple nor Facebook has treated its customers or others well in the past.
Look, this is total nonsense. Firstly, and importantly, Facebook's customers are not its users, they are its advertisers, and Facebook probably treats them pretty well. Facebook's users are its raw materials, which is treats appallingly, which is presumably what you meant, and nobody could possibly disagree with you. From those 'experiments' they ran wherein they tailored people's newsfeeds to determine whether or not bad news made you feel bad (Spoiler Alert: it does), to the way in which they play fast & loose with your private data, they are basically a pretty evil company.
But people choose to use it. I use it. I keep in touch with people, and with what's going on in my local community, and the plain fact is that there's no competitor for this. They may be in the future, and hopefully (doubtful, though!) it'll be something open, and collective, and not driven by advertising, and maybe we'll just have to suck it up and pay for it.
Now, explain to me how Apple has treated its customers in an even remotely comparable way. Apple make computers, and an operating system, and sell it to people. They also sell music, and telephones. They don't sell the cheapest computers, but they are nowhere near as expensive as people make out, and come with software that's far superior to anything else (Ok, that might be a matter of opinion...), and offer free OS upgrades for longer than any other company (Ok, other than "Linux", but that doesn't run Photoshop, so it's out).
One day, I might need to switch back from Apple devices, but the 2012 macbook pro I'm typing this on looks almost brand new. How am I being treated badly by Apple again?
Who uses the phrase "aligned with the truth" in conversation?
Nobody.
Or "glib" in the meaning of insincere and shallow... in conversation?
Lots of people. But Tim Cook wasn't being glib, and I doubt that Zucky even knows what it means.
Same. Although the command key is wearing out quite a bit.
Well, that's partly true. The newer designs for the magsafe kind of resolved that, and in any case, if your laptop is sitting on bed covers, it's likely to start overheating.
The real problem with the magsafe is that the connectors get kinda dirty or corroded or whatever, and eventually fail to provide power. Plus, of course, having a single connector style that can provide literally everything your machine needs - power, ethernet, display, keyboards, usb, etc, etc, etc - is very obviously a fantastic thing. That this connector is quite new is a bit irrelevant. It won't be new for long, and soon enough it'll be the only thing. It sure beats the shit out of micro USB, which isn't even capable of providing enough power to an Android tablet without the battery being drained.
There are many things you can critisise the man for - but it does seem a bit harsh to criticise him for dying.
Folders have always been an awful way to organise things, they were just easy to implememt in filesystems, and so weâ(TM)ve been stuck with them for decades. Labels, filters, searches and automatic photo analysis is so much better, itâ(TM)s not even funny.
It's an issue of liability. If a human-controlled vehicle hits someone, or otherwise causes an accident, someone directly involved in the situation is held to account, and the world moves on.
If the accident turns out to be the fault of a car component, like the brakes, or the steering, or the car's AI - which basically falls into the same safety category - then the situation is very, very different. Expect to see some protracted legal battles over exactly who should shoulder the blame - all I can say is I'm very glad not to work directly on any safety-related software.
or any work requiring any real level of intelligence- but rather just making smarter life decisions.
Congratulations on your success - but this sentence is clearly contradictory, and you are obviously much more intelligent that you give yourself credit for.
A comment like this is the reason I still come to this site. May your mother rest in peace.
...why not just disallow babies? See how easily that train of thought falls apart.
No, not really. But I can see how you might be getting confused.
What the heck was it doing?
It was changing your filesystem from the old broken one, to the new hotness. Seems fair that it might take a while.
And if you've got a Linux update that includes an updated kernel, and a new filesystem, and automatically converts your old filesystem for you, without even rebooting, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Another young fool who believes that the C++11 features are implemented at runtime. Yet further down into ignorance we slide.