What makes a system insecure? The system integration/networking? The software, especially third party software with its disclaimers about "no liability for implied merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose"?
None of that matters to the legislation. It can be very simple: If you expose people's private information, that your company has collected, then the CEO and board of directors do jail time.
If that was the letter of the law, then the company officers in this case wouldn't be liable - they *didn't* "expose the data". Their private servers got hacked. In much the same way if I were to get mugged, I didn't "expose my wallet", the muggers simply took it by force.
is so grossly higher than the actual price of a life
what about the life of Steve Jobs, would that be worth $10 million?
Not at all. You appear to believe that if he wasn't aruond to bring us iShinies then no one else would. The talent that is needed to bring the world iStuff is so common someone else would have done it if he wasn't around.
and thousands of people die the same moment because some terrorist pressed a button.
The US military is the only entity that has actually ever carried out attacks like this
You're missing the word "capable". Many many organisations and countries would love to have the capability, and they have every intention of using it as often as possible.
there are five people on the supreme court that make words mean whatever they want them to mean
maybe you can ask them what the word "limited" means when it comes to copyright
You keep saying this. Crack open a thesaurus - you'll see a big difference between "well-regulated" and "state-regulated". Regulated, derived from regular, always meant "in working condition".
I understand that you want the word "regulated" to mean "state-controlled and limited", but no amount of whining is going to change the fact you being regular doesn't in any way involve the government granting you permission to dump your daily crap into a toilet bowl.
Regular means many things - ordinary, common, normal, etc. *You* are trying to redefine the word to mean state-controlled and/or state-limited.
Yeah, about 90 years ago, many Europeans were saying the same thing about another crazy person. Boy, were they embarrassed!
And since then, it was said millions of times about millions of other crazy people, and those proclamations were correct. Are you really that afraid of odds smaller than getting struck by lightning?
Neither do you, apparently. C++ (the language, not the library) is the largest programming language in existence. Nothing is larger.
[citation needed]
A clue: there is no citation because you're making it up.
So let's consider languages where actual formal specifications exist because they have to be written in excricuiating detail because the asusmption there is no reference implementation that people can refer to if in doubt.
[snipped...]
So there you go, there are 4 standardised languages I've given you which have longer specifications than C++.
Well Done. Now, where exactly did I claim that the english-language specification for C++ is larger than the english-language specification for other languages? I claimed that the language "C++" is larger, but only a moron would use number of pages of english text as a measurement.
The C++ language, as defined by its grammar rules in BNF, is larger than any other programming language, as defined by their respective grammar rules in BNF. This is well-known and is taught in almost every introductory compiler class I've reviewed.
I'm not going to do your homework and search for the grammar rules for the other languages which you claim are bigger than C++; just refuting the one you listed is enough for you to ask yourself "Whats a BNF and why does it determine the size of a language?" If you do not get the relationship between "this is how much language a programmer needs to keep in their head to program" and "this is how large the BNF for the language is" then I'm afraid you are beyond my (and most professional) help.
(Hint: maybe register for some CS course in programming languages and compiler design? Or write a compiler or two yourself? You would do yourself a favour and learn enough to not use "number of pages in spec" as a measurement of a languages size (and/or complexity, but I didn't even start on that))
Given your propensity to simply make shit up about C++ [citation: see above], your statements lack credibility.
Your nerdrage whenever you perceive an attack on "your" language is laudable, however I suggest you stop being so unreasonably attached to what is only a programming language (albeit a very large one). C++ is what it is. Your insults won't change that.
I can look at a snippet of C code and figure out what it does, but any snippet of C++ code is likely gibberish without looking at numerous macros, class definitions, and documentation for subsets of the language I've never seen before.
Nonsense. You hate C++ because you don't know it,
Neither do you, apparently. C++ (the language, not the library) is the largest programming language in existence. Nothing is larger. If you think you know C++ then you're way too dangerous to be on a team. The best C++ devs I've managed were those who openly acknowledged the fact that it is too large and too complicated to be used without sticking to a strict subset of some sort.
> Replace these with just one straight "var" variable and let the runtime increase the size of the variable if the number would overflow.
This would break so much stuff:
* Various bit masks, like IP address subnet mask;
* All the code that shifts bits to the left, and just assumes that the ones that overflow simply disappear;
* Various “-1” hacks;
I'm with you on the rest, but -1 (int8_t) can be equality compared to -1 (int64_t) with no problems.
[snipped]
* If you try to invert all the bits in a number, you get what, infinity?
Currently you get -1 no matter the bit width of the integer.
Besides, humans aren't really wired very well for monogamy. I mean, some people find that their completely natural state, sure, but most of the way we view the topic is due to societal expectation. Throughout history, the powerful have had mistresses or consorts or even kept harems, there have been entire societies that practiced polygamy at all levels, and various forms of consensual non-monogamy have been practiced more-or-less in secret for centuries even in "modern" culture.
You're talking about societies in which women had few to no rights compared to men.
Cheating may feel inhumane, but it is very, very human.
Agreed. But note well that while we are free to exercise non-monogamy, once we make a monogamy choice we are punished if we deviate from it. Sure, you can leave your wife/husband of 10 years if they decide not to "be okay" with your new choice to have many partners, but a divorce (for a man, anyway) is a very punitive experience.
So, while you are correct that humans are monogamous, and it is also correct that we are not forced into monogamy, it is also true that monogamous breakups exacts a very punitive measure.
Seems like we can't have our cake *and* eat it too.
Bitcoin is currently dropping in price. Incredibly fast since the fight/fork was announced.
Can you provide some evidence of that? I don't know much about Bitcoin, but a quick google got me to this graph which shows a Bitcoin's value to be fairly stable since the beginning of the year.
That chart shows a halving in the BTC exchange rate over the last year. I suppose that you can argue that a persistent downward trend is "stable".
What halo provides is a level playing field where average Jor can turn on and start playing, no fiddling with PC configuration, no over clocking, just simply powering up of an appliance.
I don't do any of that. I game on a PC. My PC cost less than the PS4. Games cost less too.
What on earth makes you think an H1B worker "isn't free to leave for a higher paying job"?
They aren't free to withhold their labour without getting kicked out. They aren't free to resign and start their own business without getting kicked out. They are certainly free to find a new employer who will jump a few hoops to hire them. However the existence of a single hurdle, even if tiny, explicitly means that they are not as free as citizens. And I say this as someone who isn't even a citizen.
So do you like this process or would you prefer a bit less blatant third-world style corruption?
He was very clear - he liked the transparency. Liking the fact that someone exposes a corrupt system that they are playing in does not necessarily mean you like the system they show you. How could it?
Trump would make a hilarious president, and at least he has a track record of getting shit done and speaks his mind,
4 times bankruptee with a cult of personality who feels he doesn't need to listen to anyone else... You really want this guy running your country. Surely you're countries in enough strife as it is.
Seriously? Hundreds of successful businesses worth millions (perhaps billions) of dollars and you think four of those businesses going bankrupt equals failure? High standards much? You'd actually prefer having a president who lived off the public teat as a lifelong politician rather than someone who never drew a salary from your taxes?
You americans are insane. Other countries *wish* we had candidates with proven business sense. Instead we have candidates who say what they believe voters want to hear, pretty much like your non-donald candidates, in fact.
Since when, and in what two-bit penny ante legal system, does a statute of limitation come into effect while the subject is a FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE?
He isn't a fugitive from justice - justice has yet to charge him with a crime, hence he is not fleeing justice. The problem is that justice is refusing to charge him, but yet trying to encourage him to return. He doesn't want to return. If justice would only go ahead and charge him then things would be different.
Put a different way, if cops phoned me up and told me to go to the station and answer a few questions regarding a crime someone accused me of, I'd probably tell them to fuck off too. If they phone me and tell me they have a warrant for my arrest I'll tell them "No problem officer, I'll be there in a few minutes", and I'll be there in a few minutes.
If a cop isn't arresting me, I literally have no reason to talk to them - I can do it, but I'm not forced to. Assange is in this position. If they charge him then he'd probably go (because at that point no country wants to harbour a fugitive from justice). But they don't want to charge him.
1) Waiting for a girl to fall asleep so that you can F* her in a way that she repeatedly stopped you from doing and told you not to do while she was awake (charge #4 on the EAW, the one that's still open) falls under my standard of "heinous", but to each their own.
Accusing someone of raping you when he didn't falls under my standard of "heinous", but to each their own.
(See how that works - anyone can make an accusation. Just because you believe one side because that side happens to line up with your ideological beliefs doesn't mean that the other side can't make up equally bullshit assertions that also aren't based on fact.)
What about disabled passengers? Most countries require airlines to carry their equipment, like wheelchairs and crutches, for free. Some people are overweight due to health problems which can be classed as disabilities in a legal sense.
Regardless of the reason for being overweight, is it at all accurate to class overweight people as *disabled*? I think the argument yuo're seeing here is that few people want to see overeating becoming a protected class. You're also doing a huge disservice to those disabled people when you call overeaters "disabled".
Yup, the internet was paid for by paying for the internet itself
Yeah, the network is supposed to be paid for by your internet subscription. The "problem" is that the Internet isn't like a Cable subscription. Part of your Internet payment doesn't go to the content providers. Without content the Internet would be pretty useless, and you have to pay for the content somehow. Sorry, ads are a necessary thing.
My problem with them is that they have become overly aggressive. Pop-ups, ads with sound, ads you can't close, paging through 12 pages to read on paragraph of text, etc. If they wouldn't have abused that, most people wouldn't have installed an ad blocker.
Well, then, it's a self-fixing problem. The sites that do all that *should* go out of business. The ones that remain would do well to use an ad-serving method that doesn't get on the adblockers radar.
With multiple "things" throughout a house, office, wherever, it does not make sense for all of them to be heavyweight processors (which I'm assuming a Windows IoT version will need). A Raspberry PI as a controller? Sure. The 100's of "things" it controls are also RPI level of power? Nope, not going to fly.
The problem with the IoT industry right now is that they are putting *waaay* too much computational power into controlling a thermostat (Nest). The power is not for controlling, sensing or communication, it's for internet ability, which is just plain stupid. This is the proverbial solution in search of an answer.
You want IoT to take off? The sensors, switches and controllers better cost less than a dollar, be extremely tiny and actually be useful. Even a dollar would be too much to pay if all I get in return is an insecure internet light switch. Maybe if some company were to fab an 8051 with RF and the comms stack with encrypted comms built in it could take off. Wasting an entire computer to control a thermostat is both wasteful and stupid.
Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?
"I couldn't see anything through her bathroom window, your worship, even though I tried really really hard. Hence, I'm not guilty."
Being unsuccessful in the execution of a crime does not in any way make you less guilty
I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.
If they're within range of birdshot then they're too close. If they're there long enough for you to fetch, unload and reload a gun, then they're there too long.
I'm not suggesting that it is... my challenge was not on the methodology of the hack, my challenge was on the notion on the statement "Welcome to the new world where cars can be hacked", because in actuality, there's nothing new about it at all.
Then let me make OP's statement more accurate in terms you can't actually call "not new".... "Welcome to the new world where your car can be remote controlled as part of a botnet run by a single person".
There is a damn big difference between a car that is stolen and one that is controlled; I have no idea at all why you'd equate the word "hacked" with "broken into" rather than "exploited". Can you possibly explain it yourself?
Slashdot Mirror
Strange that some people apply "personal responsibility" only to people who don't have the power to influence the outcome.
The users of AM did. I exercised my power to influence the outcome. They could too.
None of that matters to the legislation. It can be very simple: If you expose people's private information, that your company has collected, then the CEO and board of directors do jail time.
If that was the letter of the law, then the company officers in this case wouldn't be liable - they *didn't* "expose the data". Their private servers got hacked. In much the same way if I were to get mugged, I didn't "expose my wallet", the muggers simply took it by force.
Perhaps if you reword it...
is so grossly higher than the actual price of a life
what about the life of Steve Jobs, would that be worth $10 million?
Not at all. You appear to believe that if he wasn't aruond to bring us iShinies then no one else would. The talent that is needed to bring the world iStuff is so common someone else would have done it if he wasn't around.
and thousands of people die the same moment because some terrorist pressed a button.
The US military is the only entity that has actually ever carried out attacks like this
You're missing the word "capable". Many many organisations and countries would love to have the capability, and they have every intention of using it as often as possible.
there are five people on the supreme court that make words mean whatever they want them to mean
maybe you can ask them what the word "limited" means when it comes to copyright
You keep saying this. Crack open a thesaurus - you'll see a big difference between "well-regulated" and "state-regulated". Regulated, derived from regular, always meant "in working condition".
I understand that you want the word "regulated" to mean "state-controlled and limited", but no amount of whining is going to change the fact you being regular doesn't in any way involve the government granting you permission to dump your daily crap into a toilet bowl.
Regular means many things - ordinary, common, normal, etc. *You* are trying to redefine the word to mean state-controlled and/or state-limited.
I consider him "mostly harmless" by comparison.
Yeah, about 90 years ago, many Europeans were saying the same thing about another crazy person. Boy, were they embarrassed!
And since then, it was said millions of times about millions of other crazy people, and those proclamations were correct. Are you really that afraid of odds smaller than getting struck by lightning?
Neither do you, apparently. C++ (the language, not the library) is the largest programming language in existence. Nothing is larger.
[citation needed]
A clue: there is no citation because you're making it up.
So let's consider languages where actual formal specifications exist because they have to be written in excricuiating detail because the asusmption there is no reference implementation that people can refer to if in doubt.
[snipped...]
So there you go, there are 4 standardised languages I've given you which have longer specifications than C++.
Well Done. Now, where exactly did I claim that the english-language specification for C++ is larger than the english-language specification for other languages? I claimed that the language "C++" is larger, but only a moron would use number of pages of english text as a measurement.
The C++ language, as defined by its grammar rules in BNF, is larger than any other programming language, as defined by their respective grammar rules in BNF. This is well-known and is taught in almost every introductory compiler class I've reviewed.
Go ahead - look it up. Here's the BNF rules for java, 48 general rules for the programmer to remember, very few depending on context. Here's the one for C++, 80+ rules for the programmer to remember, many of them depending on context.
I'm not going to do your homework and search for the grammar rules for the other languages which you claim are bigger than C++; just refuting the one you listed is enough for you to ask yourself "Whats a BNF and why does it determine the size of a language?" If you do not get the relationship between "this is how much language a programmer needs to keep in their head to program" and "this is how large the BNF for the language is" then I'm afraid you are beyond my (and most professional) help.
(Hint: maybe register for some CS course in programming languages and compiler design? Or write a compiler or two yourself? You would do yourself a favour and learn enough to not use "number of pages in spec" as a measurement of a languages size (and/or complexity, but I didn't even start on that))
Given your propensity to simply make shit up about C++ [citation: see above], your statements lack credibility.
Your nerdrage whenever you perceive an attack on "your" language is laudable, however I suggest you stop being so unreasonably attached to what is only a programming language (albeit a very large one). C++ is what it is. Your insults won't change that.
I can look at a snippet of C code and figure out what it does, but any snippet of C++ code is likely gibberish without looking at numerous macros, class definitions, and documentation for subsets of the language I've never seen before.
Nonsense. You hate C++ because you don't know it,
Neither do you, apparently. C++ (the language, not the library) is the largest programming language in existence. Nothing is larger. If you think you know C++ then you're way too dangerous to be on a team. The best C++ devs I've managed were those who openly acknowledged the fact that it is too large and too complicated to be used without sticking to a strict subset of some sort.
> Replace these with just one straight "var" variable and let the runtime increase the size of the variable if the number would overflow.
This would break so much stuff:
* Various bit masks, like IP address subnet mask; * All the code that shifts bits to the left, and just assumes that the ones that overflow simply disappear; * Various “-1” hacks;
I'm with you on the rest, but -1 (int8_t) can be equality compared to -1 (int64_t) with no problems.
[snipped] * If you try to invert all the bits in a number, you get what, infinity?
Currently you get -1 no matter the bit width of the integer.
Besides, humans aren't really wired very well for monogamy. I mean, some people find that their completely natural state, sure, but most of the way we view the topic is due to societal expectation. Throughout history, the powerful have had mistresses or consorts or even kept harems, there have been entire societies that practiced polygamy at all levels, and various forms of consensual non-monogamy have been practiced more-or-less in secret for centuries even in "modern" culture.
You're talking about societies in which women had few to no rights compared to men.
Cheating may feel inhumane, but it is very, very human.
Agreed. But note well that while we are free to exercise non-monogamy, once we make a monogamy choice we are punished if we deviate from it. Sure, you can leave your wife/husband of 10 years if they decide not to "be okay" with your new choice to have many partners, but a divorce (for a man, anyway) is a very punitive experience.
So, while you are correct that humans are monogamous, and it is also correct that we are not forced into monogamy, it is also true that monogamous breakups exacts a very punitive measure.
Seems like we can't have our cake *and* eat it too.
Bitcoin is currently dropping in price. Incredibly fast since the fight/fork was announced.
Can you provide some evidence of that? I don't know much about Bitcoin, but a quick google got me to this graph which shows a Bitcoin's value to be fairly stable since the beginning of the year.
That chart shows a halving in the BTC exchange rate over the last year. I suppose that you can argue that a persistent downward trend is "stable".
What halo provides is a level playing field where average Jor can turn on and start playing, no fiddling with PC configuration, no over clocking, just simply powering up of an appliance.
I don't do any of that. I game on a PC. My PC cost less than the PS4. Games cost less too.
What on earth makes you think an H1B worker "isn't free to leave for a higher paying job"?
They aren't free to withhold their labour without getting kicked out. They aren't free to resign and start their own business without getting kicked out. They are certainly free to find a new employer who will jump a few hoops to hire them. However the existence of a single hurdle, even if tiny, explicitly means that they are not as free as citizens. And I say this as someone who isn't even a citizen.
So do you like this process or would you prefer a bit less blatant third-world style corruption?
He was very clear - he liked the transparency. Liking the fact that someone exposes a corrupt system that they are playing in does not necessarily mean you like the system they show you. How could it?
Trump would make a hilarious president, and at least he has a track record of getting shit done and speaks his mind,
4 times bankruptee with a cult of personality who feels he doesn't need to listen to anyone else... You really want this guy running your country. Surely you're countries in enough strife as it is.
Seriously? Hundreds of successful businesses worth millions (perhaps billions) of dollars and you think four of those businesses going bankrupt equals failure? High standards much? You'd actually prefer having a president who lived off the public teat as a lifelong politician rather than someone who never drew a salary from your taxes?
You americans are insane. Other countries *wish* we had candidates with proven business sense. Instead we have candidates who say what they believe voters want to hear, pretty much like your non-donald candidates, in fact.
Since when, and in what two-bit penny ante legal system, does a statute of limitation come into effect while the subject is a FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE?
He isn't a fugitive from justice - justice has yet to charge him with a crime, hence he is not fleeing justice. The problem is that justice is refusing to charge him, but yet trying to encourage him to return. He doesn't want to return. If justice would only go ahead and charge him then things would be different.
Put a different way, if cops phoned me up and told me to go to the station and answer a few questions regarding a crime someone accused me of, I'd probably tell them to fuck off too. If they phone me and tell me they have a warrant for my arrest I'll tell them "No problem officer, I'll be there in a few minutes", and I'll be there in a few minutes.
If a cop isn't arresting me, I literally have no reason to talk to them - I can do it, but I'm not forced to. Assange is in this position. If they charge him then he'd probably go (because at that point no country wants to harbour a fugitive from justice). But they don't want to charge him.
But if they're asleep that's then that's OK?
If penetration is not enough to wake you then you have some really serious problems.
A couple minor issues.
1) Waiting for a girl to fall asleep so that you can F* her in a way that she repeatedly stopped you from doing and told you not to do while she was awake (charge #4 on the EAW, the one that's still open) falls under my standard of "heinous", but to each their own.
Accusing someone of raping you when he didn't falls under my standard of "heinous", but to each their own.
(See how that works - anyone can make an accusation. Just because you believe one side because that side happens to line up with your ideological beliefs doesn't mean that the other side can't make up equally bullshit assertions that also aren't based on fact.)
Why should people that don't drive as much subsidize those that do through road taxes?
Why should people without children at the age to attend school subsidize those that do through school taxes?
Why should anyone pay for anything that does not directly benefit them?
Oh wait. Because that's how society works.
Yeah. Can you please please please tell this to all those people who don't want to subsidise smokers in a pooled health insurance?
What about disabled passengers? Most countries require airlines to carry their equipment, like wheelchairs and crutches, for free. Some people are overweight due to health problems which can be classed as disabilities in a legal sense.
Regardless of the reason for being overweight, is it at all accurate to class overweight people as *disabled*? I think the argument yuo're seeing here is that few people want to see overeating becoming a protected class. You're also doing a huge disservice to those disabled people when you call overeaters "disabled".
Yup, the internet was paid for by paying for the internet itself
Yeah, the network is supposed to be paid for by your internet subscription. The "problem" is that the Internet isn't like a Cable subscription. Part of your Internet payment doesn't go to the content providers. Without content the Internet would be pretty useless, and you have to pay for the content somehow. Sorry, ads are a necessary thing.
My problem with them is that they have become overly aggressive. Pop-ups, ads with sound, ads you can't close, paging through 12 pages to read on paragraph of text, etc. If they wouldn't have abused that, most people wouldn't have installed an ad blocker.
Well, then, it's a self-fixing problem. The sites that do all that *should* go out of business. The ones that remain would do well to use an ad-serving method that doesn't get on the adblockers radar.
With multiple "things" throughout a house, office, wherever, it does not make sense for all of them to be heavyweight processors (which I'm assuming a Windows IoT version will need). A Raspberry PI as a controller? Sure. The 100's of "things" it controls are also RPI level of power? Nope, not going to fly.
The problem with the IoT industry right now is that they are putting *waaay* too much computational power into controlling a thermostat (Nest). The power is not for controlling, sensing or communication, it's for internet ability, which is just plain stupid. This is the proverbial solution in search of an answer.
You want IoT to take off? The sensors, switches and controllers better cost less than a dollar, be extremely tiny and actually be useful. Even a dollar would be too much to pay if all I get in return is an insecure internet light switch. Maybe if some company were to fab an 8051 with RF and the comms stack with encrypted comms built in it could take off. Wasting an entire computer to control a thermostat is both wasteful and stupid.
(Yes, I'm an embedded developer)
Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?
"I couldn't see anything through her bathroom window, your worship, even though I tried really really hard. Hence, I'm not guilty."
Being unsuccessful in the execution of a crime does not in any way make you less guilty
I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.
If they're within range of birdshot then they're too close. If they're there long enough for you to fetch, unload and reload a gun, then they're there too long.
I'm not suggesting that it is... my challenge was not on the methodology of the hack, my challenge was on the notion on the statement "Welcome to the new world where cars can be hacked", because in actuality, there's nothing new about it at all.
Then let me make OP's statement more accurate in terms you can't actually call "not new".... "Welcome to the new world where your car can be remote controlled as part of a botnet run by a single person".
There is a damn big difference between a car that is stolen and one that is controlled; I have no idea at all why you'd equate the word "hacked" with "broken into" rather than "exploited". Can you possibly explain it yourself?
Right... but it didn't used to be. That's my point... there's nothing new under the sun here.
Remote-controlled while you're behind the wheel is "nothing new"? What the hell are you smoking?