But what they're ACTUALLY saying is that if you do tasks serially, the total useful effort will be closer to 100% than if you try to switch back and forth between them.
That's a very limited (bi-polar) expectation of privacy. In fact, reasonable expectation of privacy is a continuum. If I am sitting in a little box on the south pole and know there is no human being within a few hundred miles, I have a huge expectation of privacy. If I am on stage in the spotlight surrounded by microphones, I have none.
If I am ion public, I certainly have no absolute expectation of privacy, but I do have the expectation that I am lost in the crowd. The people surrounding me are unlikely to care what I am mumbling about and are likely single chance encounters. Someone following me around in secret aiming a highly directional microphone at me is a violation of my expectation of privacy in a public place.
Likewise, I cannot reasonably expect that I won't end up in some tourist's snapshot, but I do have an expectation that I won't be followed around and star in someone's documentary movie.
Likewise, I have no expectation that I won't be identified by a random acquaintance that I meet by chance, but I do have an expectation that I won';t be videoed and then have my image compared against a multi-terabyte database in a sophisticated system to identify exactly who I am and where I go.
You should do what companies used to do back when they understood training. Hire them at a training wage that reflects the extra effort the company has to make, then when they are trained, increase their pay to match what a fully trained hire is worth (so they won't go elsewhere). Then, cultivate (through actions) a reputation for loyalty to employees knowing it will be rewarded by loyalty to the company.
That last one has been badly screwed up by pretty much every multi-national and many others.
If economists had any knowledge of engineering, they would understand that there is no such thing as a stand alone "optimum", but rather relative optimums within a set of hard constraints and competing objectives.
No amount of skill helps you when the idiots who parked in front of you and behind you while you were away left you a grand total of 2 cm to maneuver. A car that can go sideways will help a lot though.
It doesn't actually have to be fully autonomous to be useful. It need not need to know how to navigate and it doesn't need to be able to turn. It *DOES* need to know to stop to avoid accidents. It DOES need to be perfectly safe even if you fall asleep, even if you might not be in the right state when you wake up.
There is an important distinction though. If I do not control the code running in that processor (or trust zone), it *IS* inherently insecure for me. If I do control it, it may improve security or it might be neutral WRT security.
Much faster? Not with Itanic. It couldn't even outrun their 32 bit processors. Nobody was going to pay 2-7K/CPU for something that couldn't even outrun Grandma's ePC.
After flopping twice, they want to avoid the psychological demoralizer of strike 3 (at least publicly). So they need to show big Windows 10 adoption numbers even if they have to cram it down people's throats.
It's a statement of fact. An observation. By definition, it cannot be a fallacy. It could be incorrect but since it is not a conclusion, it cannot be a fallacy.
Yes, and the previous generation of deniers claimed it was just random fluctuation. It had to be because CFCs are harmless and the ozone hole was just a natural variation.
So NASA points out that the trend is continuing nicely in the way random fluctuations seldom do.
OK, dumdum, I have ACTUALLY tested hospital networks and I know for a fact that any data that a process can read, it can exfiltrate. That is not a conjecture, it is an actual observation.
Get some real world experience and while you're at it, get some manners.
The regulator also needs a broad view of "expert" and affected party. For example, when regulating mortgage practices, first in the room is bankers because they are affected and experts. Alas, the ranks of the not invited include average people who have a mortgage or hope to get one. Also absent, people who were foreclosed on. They too are affected and could be considered experts on their own personal situation at least.
A good regulator will understand that. Alas, I know of no algorithm to choose a good regulator without resorting to recursion and tautology.
The problem is who makes the whitelist. It is either an expert who may or may not have motives other than safety in mind (your computer isn't really yours, which might be acceptable on a corporate PC) or it is the owner, in which case they could skip the whitelist system and just run the software they want to run. If you need a whitelist to keep software from running without the user's permission, then you actually just have a UI problem that should be fixed.
I don't know about Windows, but in Linux, root can set a processes priority such that other processes can only run when it is blocked (for example, when requested I/O is not available).
They look similar for the same reason screwdrivers look similar. The grid of icons is a rip from a typical Windows 95 desktop and/or any touchscreen ever.. The edges are rounded because everyone eases edges, going back centuries. The mic is at one end and the speaker at the others because it has to match with human anatomy.
My old mid 90s feature phone also laid out the apps on a grid. It also resembles the old win phones.
"Florida man's" design also looks similar for the same reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually taking a break is substantially different from loading up a new context and working at it, then swapping back.
But what they're ACTUALLY saying is that if you do tasks serially, the total useful effort will be closer to 100% than if you try to switch back and forth between them.
That's a very limited (bi-polar) expectation of privacy. In fact, reasonable expectation of privacy is a continuum. If I am sitting in a little box on the south pole and know there is no human being within a few hundred miles, I have a huge expectation of privacy. If I am on stage in the spotlight surrounded by microphones, I have none.
If I am ion public, I certainly have no absolute expectation of privacy, but I do have the expectation that I am lost in the crowd. The people surrounding me are unlikely to care what I am mumbling about and are likely single chance encounters. Someone following me around in secret aiming a highly directional microphone at me is a violation of my expectation of privacy in a public place.
Likewise, I cannot reasonably expect that I won't end up in some tourist's snapshot, but I do have an expectation that I won't be followed around and star in someone's documentary movie.
Likewise, I have no expectation that I won't be identified by a random acquaintance that I meet by chance, but I do have an expectation that I won';t be videoed and then have my image compared against a multi-terabyte database in a sophisticated system to identify exactly who I am and where I go.
You should do what companies used to do back when they understood training. Hire them at a training wage that reflects the extra effort the company has to make, then when they are trained, increase their pay to match what a fully trained hire is worth (so they won't go elsewhere). Then, cultivate (through actions) a reputation for loyalty to employees knowing it will be rewarded by loyalty to the company.
That last one has been badly screwed up by pretty much every multi-national and many others.
Sub-optimum for what objective(s)?
If economists had any knowledge of engineering, they would understand that there is no such thing as a stand alone "optimum", but rather relative optimums within a set of hard constraints and competing objectives.
No amount of skill helps you when the idiots who parked in front of you and behind you while you were away left you a grand total of 2 cm to maneuver. A car that can go sideways will help a lot though.
It doesn't actually have to be fully autonomous to be useful. It need not need to know how to navigate and it doesn't need to be able to turn. It *DOES* need to know to stop to avoid accidents. It DOES need to be perfectly safe even if you fall asleep, even if you might not be in the right state when you wake up.
There is an important distinction though. If I do not control the code running in that processor (or trust zone), it *IS* inherently insecure for me. If I do control it, it may improve security or it might be neutral WRT security.
Personally, I always picture it liuke this
Much faster? Not with Itanic. It couldn't even outrun their 32 bit processors. Nobody was going to pay 2-7K/CPU for something that couldn't even outrun Grandma's ePC.
OTOH, ARM really does have a chance.
After flopping twice, they want to avoid the psychological demoralizer of strike 3 (at least publicly). So they need to show big Windows 10 adoption numbers even if they have to cram it down people's throats.
Changing the composition of the atmosphere is definitely NOT a form of leaving me alone.
That sounds a lot like a fallacy
It's a statement of fact. An observation. By definition, it cannot be a fallacy. It could be incorrect but since it is not a conclusion, it cannot be a fallacy.
But feel free to look at the history of the Montreal protocol.
I can't even imagine what you thought you read from me that inspired the rest of your rant.
Yes, and the previous generation of deniers claimed it was just random fluctuation. It had to be because CFCs are harmless and the ozone hole was just a natural variation.
So NASA points out that the trend is continuing nicely in the way random fluctuations seldom do.
Looking again, I see that. Yeah, if the driver had been paying attention at all rather than relying on autopilot, he could have stopped.
MS is poised to once again make a Moderately funny joke into reality.
Depending on how close the truck was when it left it's lane, standing on the brake might not have helped.
Crush is not the same as shear.
OK, dumdum, I have ACTUALLY tested hospital networks and I know for a fact that any data that a process can read, it can exfiltrate. That is not a conjecture, it is an actual observation.
Get some real world experience and while you're at it, get some manners.
The regulator also needs a broad view of "expert" and affected party. For example, when regulating mortgage practices, first in the room is bankers because they are affected and experts. Alas, the ranks of the not invited include average people who have a mortgage or hope to get one. Also absent, people who were foreclosed on. They too are affected and could be considered experts on their own personal situation at least.
A good regulator will understand that. Alas, I know of no algorithm to choose a good regulator without resorting to recursion and tautology.
The problem is who makes the whitelist. It is either an expert who may or may not have motives other than safety in mind (your computer isn't really yours, which might be acceptable on a corporate PC) or it is the owner, in which case they could skip the whitelist system and just run the software they want to run. If you need a whitelist to keep software from running without the user's permission, then you actually just have a UI problem that should be fixed.
I don't know about Windows, but in Linux, root can set a processes priority such that other processes can only run when it is blocked (for example, when requested I/O is not available).
They look similar for the same reason screwdrivers look similar. The grid of icons is a rip from a typical Windows 95 desktop and/or any touchscreen ever.. The edges are rounded because everyone eases edges, going back centuries. The mic is at one end and the speaker at the others because it has to match with human anatomy.
My old mid 90s feature phone also laid out the apps on a grid. It also resembles the old win phones.
"Florida man's" design also looks similar for the same reason.
So use PTRACE.
I didn't say I believe the patent to be valid, I said there's karmic justice to apple having to deal with it.
Apple did assert the outrageous idea that the rounded slab was somehow brand new.