That sounds like a gros michel banana scenario here pretty much, where someone with evil intentions would be able to abuse one of those flaws and pretty much wipe out a large quantity of windows 10 machines if not all of em in a whim.
Remember the 20 lines of code needed to brick a UEFI based computer?
Now imagine the Angler exploit kit.
Now imagine sites that have been used to distribute it via advertisements
Now imagine the move to make adblockers illegal.
This house of cards is in pretty bad shape already, Microsoft's frontdoors only make it worse.
Apocalyptic scenarios aside, the large push to discard all privacy ends up being as bad, or maybe worse for the vendors.
Mine does applications for the water industry for managing networks, and there is no way we could switch to Linux because our customers would never accept it.
Yep, you are pretty well trapped. But ya gotta write for the customer.
Not until they want wireless to work -- and are then told on all discussion forums that they have to recompile the kernel for that. I am sure they will notice the difference then
Bullshit for very large values of bullshit. I haven't had wireless not work: on any installs I've done in the last 8-10 years now.
Circular argument implies I'm assuming something and then proving what I just assumed. You need to learn what fallacies mean. And it's worth noting here that when you've come to an erroneous conclusion, it's not circular logic to figure out what errors of reasoning led to that conclusion.
No, sorry, your idea of circular argument is incorrect. Circular argument is a logicall fallacy in which a person begins with what they are ending with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Allow me to document it for you. When you were asked to debunk the insurance industries numbers regarding global warming in this part of the thread by me:
Ol Olsoc: Care to debunk the insurance companies numbers?
khallow : What is there to debunk? It's a bunch of unsupported claims.
further:
"When something is so painfully wrong that it can be defeated with one sentence, then why use two?"
"Exactly. And my one liners address many such ideas and how broken they are."
No evidence, no anything, circular arguments that are the equivalent of a third grader standing on the sidewalk and calling grownups cacaheads.
No, actually for all your sound and fury, you signify nothing.
I sincerely hope that you are just an internet troll, and don't actually believe that you are adding one thing any way or another to the conversation. Because of that isn't the case, I feel rather sorry for you.
Yea, but the world is very different in 2016 than it was in 1940...
The US is large and has massive resources that GB doesn't have. And we have nuclear weapons, which they didn't have.
Laugh at that all you like, but it does change things. The world will never again be the same as it was during the world wars, due to nuclear weapons.
So are you just having fun pointing out near irrelevancies, or do you actually believe that it makes good sense to get rid of food and basics production and get everything from other countries? Sounds like a strategic failure to me.
I would postulate that Monopolies are eventually self defeating in pure capitalism. The problem is, we are impatient beings and don't want to wait for that to happen.
Yes, in the long run. Problem is what is that long run? It could be hundreds of years. Of course over that time scale, most things fail.
Do you have enough patience that your economic outlook has no benefit for you, but for your grandchildren's grandchildren? As well as putting up with every monopoly that rises in between? Succeed or fail, that soulnds like monopolies all the way down.
Imagine a world where we didn't break up Standard Oil, and some guy invented some sort of means of producing power cheaply and effectively other than Petrol.
We have people doing that already. Opposition to them is quite strong.
Say someone like N. Tesla?
A brilliant man. But much of his fame lies within the History channel Ancient Aliens-o-sphere due to his severe eccentricities.
Imagine the total lack of CO2 problems we have today, because we never had cheap oil!
To attempt to make your story work, you are going to have to go back to the 1700's, and figure out a way that pure capitalism would work it's way around coal.
Oh wait, we can't, because it never happened. Opportunity costs are real, and most people don't have a clue how they work.
Your story fails because aside from that little problem with gases, no one would have ever stepped outside the petrochemical box. The reason? Petrochemicals are an absolutely excellent source of energy - perhaps one of the best we will ever have. Tremendouse energy density, excellent portability.
Your Tesla probably wouldn't have bothered to try to develop an alternative fuel system. And those systems he wrote about were more science fictino than anything actually possible.
Instead, what we have are groups working on alternative energy today, after understanding the problem at the core of petrofuels. And all opposed to the point of sabotage by the Petrochemical and coal interests.
Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than efficiency and costs. We cannot know what could have been. We only can know what is. And we are too dumb to let things sort themselves out because we get all emotional and do irrational things, rationalizing why we do them.
It's because we are human. Capitalism works by harnessing greed, the desire to accumulate wealth beyond survival. We all have some of this in us, to varying degrees. I have a middling amount, I've worked pretty hard to get to where I am, including rising a number of levels "beyond my class".
Some people have almost none, and we see them settle to their level, sometimes to the point of indolence.
But where the system has trouble is at the top. Some people have enough greed that instead of working for good, they have an alomst pathological drive to own it all. These are the people who while they might have a lot of success, they are harmful to the nature of capitalism. Pure Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work for this reason. Because like all other pure isms, it fails by a basic misunderstanding of human nature.
We've tried it, and it didn't work very well. China is trying it now - kinda - but it gives us melamine flavored pet food and poisonous baby formula.
It simply has to be harnessed, because as you yourself note:
Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than efficiency and costs
Which I agree with. But that's exactly why it needs reins, it's completely amoral.
Protect it from itself, and now you have something that can work.
So many people use Wi-Fi on their phones for Internet and VoIP phone calls (plus Whatsapp..etc). Would be cool not to have to worry about my phone battery going dead within a few hours after using the Wi-fi for Internet.
Even cooler if the wifi signal could charge my phone.
Great Britain is hardly analogous to the US. In addition to being vastly larger in area and natural resources, the whole not being an island thing really helps.
Do you even think my comment was about the respective sizes of the US versus the Britiish Isles? That's not even wrong. The point is there became very dependent upon another country for survival based on some bad decisions. How do you figure the early 40's would have turned out for them if the lend/lease program didn't exist?
GB got some 31.4 billion (in 1940's dollars) of aid. Obviously not all food, but these young ladies were happy for their bacon and eggs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The point is that once you decide you no longer have to produce basic items like food, you now become all that much less independent.
Windows 10 does send information back to Microsoft, but nothing personal aside from anonymous telemetry data. It's not stealing documents, it's not stealing photos, it's doing the same thing OS X does, it's doing the same thing Android does, it's doing the same thing Ubuntu did.
Oh fucking bullshit.
If you can actually read, Microsoft very plainly and explicitly says that they scrub your identifying data after thy get your telemetry. So why would they tell you they scrub it if they do not have it?
Why scrub after it gets sent and not before? Your identifying data is going over the internet - not good.
Exactly. My guess is that the data is worth more to them and who knows if they can attach a name to it.
Not nearly as badly as it looked at the time. The Germans were never close to closing down shipping in the North Atlantic. (They were able to shut down shipping to Murmansk for part of the year.)
Notice I said almost. Lucky for GB that there were people willing to get their shipping industry shot up.
There is a lesson in that - never pass off your basic needs to everyone else.
Destroying the relationship between advertisers and consumers? WAT?
Seriously you stupid moronic retarded as swipe cancerous STD ridden canker sore fuckheads. YOU! destroyed the relationship between advertisers and consumers. I don't want to blow my cap on my smartphone so I can download 40 megabytes of shitty advertisements and malware graciously provided by you assholes.
I don't want to have to pay ransomware just so I can get stupid ads. Your paradigm is broken, fix it.
FUCK you very much - you brought this shitstorm upon yourselves, by making 80 percent of the data advertising http://www.munichre.com/en/gro..., and now you are upset because we don't want you ramming your utter shit the wrong way up our asses?
Go fuck yourself. I'll stop using the internet before I turn my adblocker off.
Other than that I have no strong thoughts on the issue.
Is there a Powerpoint (*shudders*) or other materials you could link to? (Or search terms I might try? Name of insurance company if you recall and would care to share?)
I'm not doubting one bit, but it would be an interesting perusal nonetheless.
It was quite a long time ago, but here is Munich RE, a re-insurer company http://www.munichre.com/en/gro...
Interestingly enough, they first warned of the impact of global warming on insurance in 1973.
the minute amount of extra energy won't really matter though, that's the point. The sea won't rise two feet in one day, and those "poor natives" on islands essentially at sea level were going to be under water anyway in 400 years if not the next 75. alarmist nonsense like the impossible scenarios Al Gore presented just hurt the cause of doing anything meaningful about pollution
Tell us - how much is that "minute amount of extra energy"? Whatever handy unit of measurements, and don't spare us the big words.
The best estimate for the current radiative forcing due to anthropogenic trace gasses, according to the IPCC AR4, is 1.6 Watts per square meter (with a range of uncertainty from 0.6 to 2.4). http://news.mit.edu/2010/expla...
Whether that is "tiny" or not depends on what you call "tiny".
That is 800 Terawatts of extra energy stored in the atmosphere.
At this point we are at around 1.8 watts per square meter of radiative forcing. Let's go with rounding and call it 1000 Terawatts.
No country is self sufficient anymore. And the trend is toward globalization. I am all for getting my food from Canada and Russia if that's where the food is grown most efficiently..
Great Britain took the same attitude before WW2. Check your history to see how that almost turned out.
Well unless you consider that a warmer climate will increase the total arable land for agriculture... A net positive? How much of the earth's surface is currently not used for agriculture because it is too cold? Also, most areas near the ocean aren't used for agriculture anyway... Farms are usually well inland.
Let us take teh nationalistic approach.
You down with the idea that your country might become unable to support itself?
the minute amount of extra energy won't really matter though, that's the point. The sea won't rise two feet in one day, and those "poor natives" on islands essentially at sea level were going to be under water anyway in 400 years if not the next 75. alarmist nonsense like the impossible scenarios Al Gore presented just hurt the cause of doing anything meaningful about pollution
Tell us - how much is that "minute amount of extra energy"? Whatever handy unit of measurements, and don't spare us the big words.
You do realise the universe doesn't give a flying fuck about what you think about Climate scientists.
People who don't understand science, but do understand politics, disagree. Today, we can take a vote on the laws of physices and repeal them if they aren't convenient.
The effects of CO2 in the atmosphere have been know for over a century, and the physics makes it clear the higher the concentrations, the more energy will be trapped in the lower atmosphere. If you have an explanation as to where that energy is going that doesn't involve heating then be my guest and provide it. Otherwise, quit being a fucking retard.
They never will. Take pity on the deniers. All they have left is cherry picking old and now updated data that is now the equal of declaring a typo the refutation of AGW. Their boat is getting very small indeed, as they approach the credibility level of flat earthers.
I've asked for the science that proves the breakdown of the energy storing effects of the so called greenhouse gases at a global level, all I get back is hockey sticks and the satellite versus balloon inconsistencies, which have long been correlated - even by the scientist who brought up the discrepancy.
What is the insurance policy time frame, one year? They aren't worried about rising oceans.
Actually, they are. Insurance companies deal in figures, anf they have tables with things like 10 25 50 100 year floods and disasters like hurricanes and tornados, and actuarial tables with likelyhood of death for insured individuals that they call into play when determining costing of policies.
And they darned well are concerned about rising ocean levels. Given the nature of the areas near the ocean like flat land and not much rise, a small rise in sea level, especially coupled with a high tide, can make a huge difference in hurricane damage.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like a gros michel banana scenario here pretty much, where someone with evil intentions would be able to abuse one of those flaws and pretty much wipe out a large quantity of windows 10 machines if not all of em in a whim.
Remember the 20 lines of code needed to brick a UEFI based computer?
Now imagine the Angler exploit kit.
Now imagine sites that have been used to distribute it via advertisements
Now imagine the move to make adblockers illegal.
This house of cards is in pretty bad shape already, Microsoft's frontdoors only make it worse. Apocalyptic scenarios aside, the large push to discard all privacy ends up being as bad, or maybe worse for the vendors.
Mine does applications for the water industry for managing networks, and there is no way we could switch to Linux because our customers would never accept it.
Yep, you are pretty well trapped. But ya gotta write for the customer.
Basically 90+% of software is present on Windows.
And always will be!
Microsoft - number one, forever and ever, world without end, amen.
Hubris is such a hoot.
Not until they want wireless to work -- and are then told on all discussion forums that they have to recompile the kernel for that. I am sure they will notice the difference then
Bullshit for very large values of bullshit. I haven't had wireless not work: on any installs I've done in the last 8-10 years now.
Did you read the summary? This is not complicated. Change the settings.
And how long before a "bug" resets your changes back to what Microsoft prefers?
A bug? I have to go back into my settings after each update. It's a feature!
Circular argument implies I'm assuming something and then proving what I just assumed. You need to learn what fallacies mean. And it's worth noting here that when you've come to an erroneous conclusion, it's not circular logic to figure out what errors of reasoning led to that conclusion.
No, sorry, your idea of circular argument is incorrect. Circular argument is a logicall fallacy in which a person begins with what they are ending with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Allow me to document it for you. When you were asked to debunk the insurance industries numbers regarding global warming in this part of the thread by me: Ol Olsoc: Care to debunk the insurance companies numbers?
khallow : What is there to debunk? It's a bunch of unsupported claims.
further:
"When something is so painfully wrong that it can be defeated with one sentence, then why use two?"
"Exactly. And my one liners address many such ideas and how broken they are."
No evidence, no anything, circular arguments that are the equivalent of a third grader standing on the sidewalk and calling grownups cacaheads. No, actually for all your sound and fury, you signify nothing. I sincerely hope that you are just an internet troll, and don't actually believe that you are adding one thing any way or another to the conversation. Because of that isn't the case, I feel rather sorry for you.
Yea, but the world is very different in 2016 than it was in 1940...
The US is large and has massive resources that GB doesn't have. And we have nuclear weapons, which they didn't have.
Laugh at that all you like, but it does change things. The world will never again be the same as it was during the world wars, due to nuclear weapons.
So are you just having fun pointing out near irrelevancies, or do you actually believe that it makes good sense to get rid of food and basics production and get everything from other countries? Sounds like a strategic failure to me.
I would postulate that Monopolies are eventually self defeating in pure capitalism. The problem is, we are impatient beings and don't want to wait for that to happen.
Yes, in the long run. Problem is what is that long run? It could be hundreds of years. Of course over that time scale, most things fail.
Do you have enough patience that your economic outlook has no benefit for you, but for your grandchildren's grandchildren? As well as putting up with every monopoly that rises in between? Succeed or fail, that soulnds like monopolies all the way down.
Imagine a world where we didn't break up Standard Oil, and some guy invented some sort of means of producing power cheaply and effectively other than Petrol.
We have people doing that already. Opposition to them is quite strong.
Say someone like N. Tesla?
A brilliant man. But much of his fame lies within the History channel Ancient Aliens-o-sphere due to his severe eccentricities.
Imagine the total lack of CO2 problems we have today, because we never had cheap oil!
To attempt to make your story work, you are going to have to go back to the 1700's, and figure out a way that pure capitalism would work it's way around coal.
Oh wait, we can't, because it never happened. Opportunity costs are real, and most people don't have a clue how they work.
Your story fails because aside from that little problem with gases, no one would have ever stepped outside the petrochemical box. The reason? Petrochemicals are an absolutely excellent source of energy - perhaps one of the best we will ever have. Tremendouse energy density, excellent portability.
Your Tesla probably wouldn't have bothered to try to develop an alternative fuel system. And those systems he wrote about were more science fictino than anything actually possible.
Instead, what we have are groups working on alternative energy today, after understanding the problem at the core of petrofuels. And all opposed to the point of sabotage by the Petrochemical and coal interests.
Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than efficiency and costs. We cannot know what could have been. We only can know what is. And we are too dumb to let things sort themselves out because we get all emotional and do irrational things, rationalizing why we do them.
It's because we are human. Capitalism works by harnessing greed, the desire to accumulate wealth beyond survival. We all have some of this in us, to varying degrees. I have a middling amount, I've worked pretty hard to get to where I am, including rising a number of levels "beyond my class".
Some people have almost none, and we see them settle to their level, sometimes to the point of indolence.
But where the system has trouble is at the top. Some people have enough greed that instead of working for good, they have an alomst pathological drive to own it all. These are the people who while they might have a lot of success, they are harmful to the nature of capitalism. Pure Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work for this reason. Because like all other pure isms, it fails by a basic misunderstanding of human nature.
We've tried it, and it didn't work very well. China is trying it now - kinda - but it gives us melamine flavored pet food and poisonous baby formula.
It simply has to be harnessed, because as you yourself note:
Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than efficiency and costs
Which I agree with. But that's exactly why it needs reins, it's completely amoral.
Protect it from itself, and now you have something that can work.
I see that number as extraordinary, you see it as meh. Why am I so wrong? Why are the scientists who do this for a living wrong?
So many people use Wi-Fi on their phones for Internet and VoIP phone calls (plus Whatsapp..etc). Would be cool not to have to worry about my phone battery going dead within a few hours after using the Wi-fi for Internet.
Even cooler if the wifi signal could charge my phone.
Why do so many people who are just plain wrong speak with such great authority?
DK. Too dumb to know he's dumb.
As long as they are happy, I suppose.
But I just love the arguments :
Him: That's just stupid!
Me: Why is it stupid?
Him: I don't have to tell you because it's so stupid!
When I was a young'un learning on my C-64, I could have written a cute little BASIC program encompassing the whole argument.
Great Britain is hardly analogous to the US. In addition to being vastly larger in area and natural resources, the whole not being an island thing really helps.
Do you even think my comment was about the respective sizes of the US versus the Britiish Isles? That's not even wrong. The point is there became very dependent upon another country for survival based on some bad decisions. How do you figure the early 40's would have turned out for them if the lend/lease program didn't exist?
GB got some 31.4 billion (in 1940's dollars) of aid. Obviously not all food, but these young ladies were happy for their bacon and eggs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The point is that once you decide you no longer have to produce basic items like food, you now become all that much less independent.
Windows 10 does send information back to Microsoft, but nothing personal aside from anonymous telemetry data. It's not stealing documents, it's not stealing photos, it's doing the same thing OS X does, it's doing the same thing Android does, it's doing the same thing Ubuntu did.
Oh fucking bullshit.
If you can actually read, Microsoft very plainly and explicitly says that they scrub your identifying data after thy get your telemetry. So why would they tell you they scrub it if they do not have it?
Why scrub after it gets sent and not before? Your identifying data is going over the internet - not good.
Exactly. My guess is that the data is worth more to them and who knows if they can attach a name to it.
Not nearly as badly as it looked at the time. The Germans were never close to closing down shipping in the North Atlantic. (They were able to shut down shipping to Murmansk for part of the year.)
Notice I said almost. Lucky for GB that there were people willing to get their shipping industry shot up.
There is a lesson in that - never pass off your basic needs to everyone else.
Seriously you stupid moronic retarded as swipe cancerous STD ridden canker sore fuckheads. YOU! destroyed the relationship between advertisers and consumers. I don't want to blow my cap on my smartphone so I can download 40 megabytes of shitty advertisements and malware graciously provided by you assholes.
I don't want to have to pay ransomware just so I can get stupid ads. Your paradigm is broken, fix it.
FUCK you very much - you brought this shitstorm upon yourselves, by making 80 percent of the data advertising http://www.munichre.com/en/gro..., and now you are upset because we don't want you ramming your utter shit the wrong way up our asses?
Go fuck yourself. I'll stop using the internet before I turn my adblocker off.
Other than that I have no strong thoughts on the issue.
Is there a Powerpoint (*shudders*) or other materials you could link to? (Or search terms I might try? Name of insurance company if you recall and would care to share?)
I'm not doubting one bit, but it would be an interesting perusal nonetheless.
It was quite a long time ago, but here is Munich RE, a re-insurer company http://www.munichre.com/en/gro... Interestingly enough, they first warned of the impact of global warming on insurance in 1973.
I love discussing things with shallow. He can invalidate an entire scientific issue with one sentence.
When something is so painfully wrong that it can be defeated with one sentence, then why use two?
A wise man once told me, any idea that can be dealt with in a nutshell, belongs in one.
As well, your circular arguments are not convincing anyone but yourself.
the minute amount of extra energy won't really matter though, that's the point. The sea won't rise two feet in one day, and those "poor natives" on islands essentially at sea level were going to be under water anyway in 400 years if not the next 75. alarmist nonsense like the impossible scenarios Al Gore presented just hurt the cause of doing anything meaningful about pollution
Tell us - how much is that "minute amount of extra energy"? Whatever handy unit of measurements, and don't spare us the big words.
The best estimate for the current radiative forcing due to anthropogenic trace gasses, according to the IPCC AR4, is 1.6 Watts per square meter (with a range of uncertainty from 0.6 to 2.4). http://news.mit.edu/2010/expla...
Whether that is "tiny" or not depends on what you call "tiny".
That is 800 Terawatts of extra energy stored in the atmosphere.
At this point we are at around 1.8 watts per square meter of radiative forcing. Let's go with rounding and call it 1000 Terawatts.
Here's more recent data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/a...
That's pretty significant in my book.
More supported, or less, than your own?
I love discussing things with shallow. He can invalidate an entire scientific issue with one sentence.
Why do so many people who are just plain wrong speak with such great authority?
No country is self sufficient anymore. And the trend is toward globalization. I am all for getting my food from Canada and Russia if that's where the food is grown most efficiently..
Great Britain took the same attitude before WW2. Check your history to see how that almost turned out.
Well unless you consider that a warmer climate will increase the total arable land for agriculture... A net positive? How much of the earth's surface is currently not used for agriculture because it is too cold? Also, most areas near the ocean aren't used for agriculture anyway... Farms are usually well inland.
Let us take teh nationalistic approach.
You down with the idea that your country might become unable to support itself?
the minute amount of extra energy won't really matter though, that's the point. The sea won't rise two feet in one day, and those "poor natives" on islands essentially at sea level were going to be under water anyway in 400 years if not the next 75. alarmist nonsense like the impossible scenarios Al Gore presented just hurt the cause of doing anything meaningful about pollution
Tell us - how much is that "minute amount of extra energy"? Whatever handy unit of measurements, and don't spare us the big words.
The universe doesn't give a flying fuck about climate scientists either. Or whether you "save" the planet, for that matter.
That is quite true. You driven off any cliffs lately because you don't believe theere is a cliff there?
You do realise the universe doesn't give a flying fuck about what you think about Climate scientists.
People who don't understand science, but do understand politics, disagree. Today, we can take a vote on the laws of physices and repeal them if they aren't convenient.
The effects of CO2 in the atmosphere have been know for over a century, and the physics makes it clear the higher the concentrations, the more energy will be trapped in the lower atmosphere. If you have an explanation as to where that energy is going that doesn't involve heating then be my guest and provide it. Otherwise, quit being a fucking retard.
They never will. Take pity on the deniers. All they have left is cherry picking old and now updated data that is now the equal of declaring a typo the refutation of AGW. Their boat is getting very small indeed, as they approach the credibility level of flat earthers. I've asked for the science that proves the breakdown of the energy storing effects of the so called greenhouse gases at a global level, all I get back is hockey sticks and the satellite versus balloon inconsistencies, which have long been correlated - even by the scientist who brought up the discrepancy.
Otherwise, it's crickets all the way down.
What is the insurance policy time frame, one year? They aren't worried about rising oceans.
Actually, they are. Insurance companies deal in figures, anf they have tables with things like 10 25 50 100 year floods and disasters like hurricanes and tornados, and actuarial tables with likelyhood of death for insured individuals that they call into play when determining costing of policies.
And they darned well are concerned about rising ocean levels. Given the nature of the areas near the ocean like flat land and not much rise, a small rise in sea level, especially coupled with a high tide, can make a huge difference in hurricane damage.