My mother who is 83 has been running Kubuntu turn since the Vista days. She has learned to trouble shoot her printer problems. Even grannies can learn linux.
Pics of your mom hitting up man pages and googling her own solutions and fixing her own printer or it didn't fucking happen.
That presumes that Grandma's computer can even run Windows 8.1, which may not be the case if her computer is too old.
If the computer is so old that it can't run 8, then it's time for a hardware upgrade anyway just to use the modern web.
Windows 8.1 System Requirements:
- Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 (more info)
- RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
- Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
- Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver
7 has the same requirements (and 8 runs better than 7 on the same hardware). Vista has only slightly lower requirements.
Of course, this is a completely separate issue from an OS upgrade.
8.1 allows you to boot straight to the desktop. A tech-illiterate user will see the desktop and the usual icons for browser, windows explorer, etc. 8.1 also has a visual start button so people will know where to click to turn the thing off.
The only real difference is the start menu. Coming from Vista/7, you do the same shit. Hit start, then type. Coming from XP it's a bigger change, but it's a huge improvement and well worth the 2 minutes to learn how to use it. If your particular granny thinks otherwise, there are plenty of 3rd party solutions to restore a "classic" start menu.
Spoken like a true Windows-cluebag. 1) If you give them regular user privileges on Linux, they can't trash the OS. 2) The next version of windows is going back to the 'traditional look and feel' so forcing them to adapt is retarded. 3) We know that's you Steve Ballmer, go back to your forced retirement.
The sure as fuck can and will trash the OS. Whether they're just trashing their user profile doesn't matter. It'll require you to fix it for them. No it isn't, and whoever told you that is an idiot. I wish I was Ballmer, and so do you. He's got money out the ass.
Whatever OS a clueless user is on will be trashed as soon as you step away unless you completely lock down their ability to do anything. Just upgrade to Windows 8.1 and be done with it. A user so adverse to change that they can't deal with the new start menu won't need anything more than desktop + browser, which you can configure to open on boot.
The core components, such as Direct3D and DirectInput, are considered part of the operating system [microsoft.com]
Considering how they are tied to windows core components, I suppose there is a slim chance that Windows 7 SP2 could potentially include DX12 in it.
Of course, there is also a slim chance the Easter Bunny will bring me solid gold eggs and Santa will fill my stocking with hundred dollar bills. I'd much prefer either of those.
There is no plan for Windows 7 SP2. Windows 9 would have to be delayed by over a year, with sales of 8.1 remaining flat before they even consider it.
This depends on your definition of "quantum crypto".
End-to-end quantum cryptography allows you to know whether your communication has been intercepted. It IS theoretically immune to MITM. Simple quantum key generation or exchange however, may not be.
No it doesn't. Please explain how: 1: Alice can intentionally generate a message and a specific photon (or whatever), before sending them to Bob. 2: Bob knows what the message or the photon should look like in order to validate them. 3: An attacker cannot intercept communications between Bob and Alice and present a spoofed message and photon (or whatever) just as Alice legitimately can.
If you can't reliably create a photon in a specific manner, then how can Alice do it? If Alice is created a random photon along with her message, then how does Bob know what to expect (in order to verify shit) since neither can measure the photon without fucking with it?
Quantum encryption is only secure IF you share keys securely before hand. If you have a MITM there from the beginning and you do your initial communication over the line(s) the MITM has access to, you're fucked.
A pre-shared key is the ONLY way to protect information in transit.
You can do your initial key sharing by entangling particles when you created Alice's and Bob's Quantum Encryption Boxes, but that's no fucking different than Alice and Bob sharing a traditional key via a separate, secure channel (such as in person) before initiating communication over the line.
2: Use an encryption algorithm known only to the parties intending to communicate. Try not to use ROT13. It's trivial to shit out an algorithm that is so complex and bizarre no one will ever figure it out, but hard to make one that is also easy to use without leaving shit for your enemies to find.
Do you have a reference for this? The prevailing wisdom suggests that it's quite difficult to create a secure encryption algorithm - so difficult that only a few algorithms are in widespread use. An algorithm that is complex and bizarre is also complex to prove that it's secure, and could have some fatal weakness that's unearthed that makes cracking it feasible.
Widespread use of such algorithms by militaries, spies, serial killers, etc. that are typically only cracked when enemies get their hands on encoding/decoding materials.
For example, using a reference text such as a book or newspaper, using daily events such as weather/temperature/baseball scores, etc. all as part of a convoluted transformation scheme.
For example: The Dodgers beat the Mariners 4 to 2 in their last game, the temperature in Timbucktoo was 62 degrees as reported in a specific newspaper, and you've got Moby Dick as a reference text. Today is the 27th of the month so you start from the 27th word on the 2nd page of the 4th chapter and use the first 62 characters as your key in a more traditional substitution cypher. But today is also a Thursday so you discard every 7th character then split the cyphertext into rows of 20 characters long and use only the odd rows, appended by the 4th, 8th, etc rows in reverse before decoding. Then if the decoded message contains the keyword "absolute" and the Dodgers won, you then follow a substitution map for certain words, if the Dodgers lost you use a different map. Etc. etc. etc.
It can be as crazy as you want and no one will ever be able to figure it out without coming across your own notes (or program) that use you to decode and encode shit. Or it can be as simple as "The red crow flies at midnight." and "But the bacon is nearly cooked.". It all hinges on knowing wtf to do with such a message, and getting all parties on the same page for that represents the key exchange.
I've not heard any explanation for how such systems prevent a man in the middle attack, I suspect the answer is simply that they don't.
Quantum secured transmission prevents eavesdroppers. Well, that's not entirely true either, it makes a very unstable communication situation that will be obviously disrupted in the case of an eavesdropper. While there are other techniques that can be used to make 2-party-only communications, quantum secured methods have the advantage that there is no known way to recreate a photon with the same properties as the one you had to intercept to XOR against that bit that was sent in a clear channel (assuming you even know which property is being used to modify the data feed).
Any location that the signal is decoded is vulnerable. Always has been, always will be. In practice, quantum secured communications are the modern take on one-time-pad crypto. Send the key by one channel, the data by another, and put the bulk of your effort in making sure that one of those is safe so that the other side is useless even if intercepted.
Alice sure as hell knew how to create that photon, and Bob either: A: Knew what to expect in the message (or meta data) in order to verify that photon was legit. B: Didn't actually verify shit.
If an attacker can't generate a specific photon, they can generate any photon and generate the data the same way Alice did. The only way to detect such an attack is to have a timing window so tight that the attacker can't do that. The internet being what it is, and even dedicated fiber links being what they are, this won't work in practice. If you want to be secure you won't be able to communicate reliably. If you want to communicate reliably you'll have to accept reduced security.
A MITM attack is always possible if you send the key and the message over the line(s). Something has to be transmitted in a secure way before you can use it as a basis for securing further messages.
but it does provably let you discover that snooping has happened
Not it doesn't. Alice can't differentiate between Bob reading the message and an attacker performing a MITM attack. If Alice can generate a message and transmit it over a wire so can anyone with access to the wire, regardless of whether you're sending electrons, photons, or tachyons. Exchanging keys over the wire will always be susceptible to MITM attacks. "Quantum" and "laser" don't help anymore than "leprechaun".
There are 2 ways to securely communicate.
1: Use a known and unbreakable encryption algorithm along with keys you've previously exchanged in a secure manner (in person, very quietly, without writing shit down, etc.).
2: Use an encryption algorithm known only to the parties intending to communicate. Try not to use ROT13. It's trivial to shit out an algorithm that is so complex and bizarre no one will ever figure it out, but hard to make one that is also easy to use without leaving shit for your enemies to find.
The ultimate end-game for both options is a one-time pad.
It's normal to has custom configurations between Windows, OS X and Linux, so why are they hurting the performance of "the many" over the weakness of the few?
They already have custom support for OS-specific features (e.g., OS X's full screen mode), so this would not be a new development.
Truth: It's bullshit they're feeding you because they want you to use ChromeOS on a branded Chromebook where GPU acceleration magically works. despite being the same hardware and drivers.
The problems have been in trusting your stash with companies that have no business being trusted.
Bitcoin may not have any problems with the protocol - which is debatable - but the problem lies in the requirement for exchanges.
In order to be able to change Bitcoin into dollars and back to Bitcoins, the exchanges must, out of necessity, maintain a stock of Bitcoins that is server-accessible.
If it's server-accessible, it's hackable and subject to theft. If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel.
Also, from what I've read it appears that Bitcoin thefts are not reversible. This is especially problematic given that there is a finite supply of Bitcoins; no central authority can come in and save your Bitcoin "bank" if it is robbed, whereas if my local Wells Fargo down the street is robbed, the FDIC insures my deposits to the tune of $250,000 (which also comes in handy in case the bank fails entirely, which is an extremely rare occurrence.) Even if there was the equivalent of an FDIC for Bitcoin "banks", eventually they run out of Bitcoins they can pay back on insurance.
This, and myriad other problems with Bitcoint that have been enumerated on Slashdot ad nauseum, should really convince any rational-minded person that Bitcoin is entirely worthless.
Exchanges do not need to maintain a hot wallet. They can (and should, I say) process all trades manually from an offline wallet. Yes, there'd be a delay before your trade is executed, but the only people who want instant trading are the market manipulators (just like with regular stock exchanges). Reasonable delays would be good for investors and users of Bitcoin, with the added bonus of an offline wallet with a person executing manual transactions being a hell of a lot more secure than a hot wallet.
Seriously, if you come here to talk about how this isn't a fundamental bitcoin problem, you deserve to have your noise smacked with newspaper like a dog.
The only 'benefit' bitcoin has is that its unregulated and not as well watched by the government... which means its easy for people to just steal your money and lie about it... I'm sorry, its easy for someone to setup an exchange and let someone else steal the coins from the 'hot wallet', whatever the fuck that is.
Before you open your mouth to defend bitcoin....
THIS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOUR STUPID DUMB ASSES ABOUT, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP, ITS A SHITTY IDEA.
If you have cash in your wallet, and you lose that wallet, you lose that cash. If you put your cash in someone else's wallet and they lose the wallet you lose the cash.
If you have Bitcoins in your wallet and you lose that wallet, you lose those Bitcoins. If you put your Bitcoins in someone else's wallet and they lose the wallet you lose the Bitcoins.
The only "STUPID DUMB ASSES" that need to "SHUT THE FUCK UP" are people like you who don't understand the fundamentals of Bitcoin. You really have no business speaking on the subject if you can't learn rule 1 about storing your Bitcoins - treat Bitcoins like cash.
Translation: I'm a fucking moron who fears and doesn't understand science.
Unless you've done the research and experimentation yourself, you don't understand the science either, you just choose to believe it. This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with people not trusting the government.
So basically, if you start a messages session on your iphone, with another messages account and then for some unknown reason decide that you're not going to use your iPhone to continue the conversation but switch to a completely different phone that you're also paying for service on for some reason, you can't continue that conversation over messages. Of course, you can just send a text message from your other phone to your friend and keep going but I guess that's too difficult.
If you kept your number, your friend still on Messages will see your text in their Messages conversation and, when replying, will think it got sent to you but in reality it gets sent to your Message account which should be (but isn't) disabled.
As far as I can tell form the shitty summary, anyway.
Ben Kuchera is a fucking tool who has no business writing about anything. The same goes for Polygon. Kuchera was one of the assmunches on the front lines defending MS's initial DRM and always-online schemes for the XBOX One.
His opinions were so bad and so obviously paid-for that he got kicked out of Penny Arcade for shit like this http://penny-arcade.com/report... (I think they pulled it down because it was so bad) and this https://twitter.com/BenKuchera... . Penny fucking Arcade realized how shitty he was, Yes, that Penny Arcade. The one run by the no-standards shills that did an instant 180 from gamers to tools once MS started paying them. The PA that bullies its own fans and offers a kickstarter to remove ads from their massively-profitable website, with stretch goals to remove more ads, but still not all the ads.
Ben Kuchera's internet fame was spawned from PA, and he became such an insufferable goon that even PA realized he needed to be cut loose. He shat around Arse Technica for a while and now he's shitting it up at Polygon.
We all know games "journalism" is about one of the most laughable things ever, but Kuchera and Polygon represent the fucking highest echelon of shilling, shit-flinging, and all around douchebaggery. There is zero integrity involved with Polygon as a whole and with Kuchera as a person. You shouldn't simply distrust their reviews, news, opinions, etc., you should actively trust it to be complete and utter paid-for horseshit.
Me? I don't want sea salt. Not with all the mercury and PCBs floating around in the ocean. You think they refine it or anything? Nope, they just evaporate the water and package it.
I want the stuff that's been underground for millions of years, unmolested by humans until they dig it out. Give me the most refined, chemically pure salt they can possibly manufacture. Sodium and chlorine in equal amounts, that's it (well, maybe a bit of iodine as well).
You try telling one of the people in the store that sea salt may not be better. They'll chase you out of the shop with a slab of tofu!
I'm at work, in my office. It's almost 5 and there are only a few people left here. I leaned over in my chair to fart but I pooped my pants. I'm not talking about a shart. I'm talking about a Chicken McNugget sized turd.
Slashdot Mirror
Might as well have just done:
Title: GABBO
Summary: GABBO is coming!
Article: Who is GABBO? No one knows, but he's coming soon!
Their attack ... reduced errors from previous methodologies more than 3 ½ times.
There has got to be a clearer way of saying that. Do they mean "to less than 28%?"
The errors were at X before, now they're under negative 2.5X.
It's a process.
A process is a thing.
Every thing is a thing.
Everything is also a thing (and therefore a thing).
Nothing is a thing, but no thing is not a thing.
My mother who is 83 has been running Kubuntu turn since the Vista days. She has learned to trouble shoot her printer problems. Even grannies can learn linux.
Pics of your mom hitting up man pages and googling her own solutions and fixing her own printer or it didn't fucking happen.
That presumes that Grandma's computer can even run Windows 8.1, which may not be the case if her computer is too old.
If the computer is so old that it can't run 8, then it's time for a hardware upgrade anyway just to use the modern web.
Windows 8.1 System Requirements:
- Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 (more info)
- RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
- Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
- Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver
7 has the same requirements (and 8 runs better than 7 on the same hardware).
Vista has only slightly lower requirements.
Of course, this is a completely separate issue from an OS upgrade.
8.1 allows you to boot straight to the desktop.
A tech-illiterate user will see the desktop and the usual icons for browser, windows explorer, etc.
8.1 also has a visual start button so people will know where to click to turn the thing off.
The only real difference is the start menu. Coming from Vista/7, you do the same shit. Hit start, then type.
Coming from XP it's a bigger change, but it's a huge improvement and well worth the 2 minutes to learn how to use it. If your particular granny thinks otherwise, there are plenty of 3rd party solutions to restore a "classic" start menu.
Spoken like a true Windows-cluebag.
1) If you give them regular user privileges on Linux, they can't trash the OS.
2) The next version of windows is going back to the 'traditional look and feel' so forcing them to adapt is retarded.
3) We know that's you Steve Ballmer, go back to your forced retirement.
The sure as fuck can and will trash the OS. Whether they're just trashing their user profile doesn't matter. It'll require you to fix it for them.
No it isn't, and whoever told you that is an idiot.
I wish I was Ballmer, and so do you. He's got money out the ass.
Whatever OS a clueless user is on will be trashed as soon as you step away unless you completely lock down their ability to do anything.
Just upgrade to Windows 8.1 and be done with it. A user so adverse to change that they can't deal with the new start menu won't need anything more than desktop + browser, which you can configure to open on boot.
The core components, such as Direct3D and DirectInput, are considered part of the operating system [microsoft.com]
Considering how they are tied to windows core components, I suppose there is a slim chance that Windows 7 SP2 could potentially include DX12 in it.
Of course, there is also a slim chance the Easter Bunny will bring me solid gold eggs and Santa will fill my stocking with hundred dollar bills. I'd much prefer either of those.
There is no plan for Windows 7 SP2.
Windows 9 would have to be delayed by over a year, with sales of 8.1 remaining flat before they even consider it.
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Onions are high sugar.
Anything you can order "caramelized" (like, say, onions) is bad.
So my caramel-coated caramels are safe.
This depends on your definition of "quantum crypto".
End-to-end quantum cryptography allows you to know whether your communication has been intercepted. It IS theoretically immune to MITM. Simple quantum key generation or exchange however, may not be.
No it doesn't. Please explain how:
1: Alice can intentionally generate a message and a specific photon (or whatever), before sending them to Bob.
2: Bob knows what the message or the photon should look like in order to validate them.
3: An attacker cannot intercept communications between Bob and Alice and present a spoofed message and photon (or whatever) just as Alice legitimately can.
If you can't reliably create a photon in a specific manner, then how can Alice do it?
If Alice is created a random photon along with her message, then how does Bob know what to expect (in order to verify shit) since neither can measure the photon without fucking with it?
Quantum encryption is only secure IF you share keys securely before hand.
If you have a MITM there from the beginning and you do your initial communication over the line(s) the MITM has access to, you're fucked.
A pre-shared key is the ONLY way to protect information in transit.
You can do your initial key sharing by entangling particles when you created Alice's and Bob's Quantum Encryption Boxes, but that's no fucking different than Alice and Bob sharing a traditional key via a separate, secure channel (such as in person) before initiating communication over the line.
2: Use an encryption algorithm known only to the parties intending to communicate. Try not to use ROT13. It's trivial to shit out an algorithm that is so complex and bizarre no one will ever figure it out, but hard to make one that is also easy to use without leaving shit for your enemies to find.
Do you have a reference for this? The prevailing wisdom suggests that it's quite difficult to create a secure encryption algorithm - so difficult that only a few algorithms are in widespread use. An algorithm that is complex and bizarre is also complex to prove that it's secure, and could have some fatal weakness that's unearthed that makes cracking it feasible.
Widespread use of such algorithms by militaries, spies, serial killers, etc. that are typically only cracked when enemies get their hands on encoding/decoding materials.
For example, using a reference text such as a book or newspaper, using daily events such as weather/temperature/baseball scores, etc. all as part of a convoluted transformation scheme.
For example: The Dodgers beat the Mariners 4 to 2 in their last game, the temperature in Timbucktoo was 62 degrees as reported in a specific newspaper, and you've got Moby Dick as a reference text. Today is the 27th of the month so you start from the 27th word on the 2nd page of the 4th chapter and use the first 62 characters as your key in a more traditional substitution cypher. But today is also a Thursday so you discard every 7th character then split the cyphertext into rows of 20 characters long and use only the odd rows, appended by the 4th, 8th, etc rows in reverse before decoding.
Then if the decoded message contains the keyword "absolute" and the Dodgers won, you then follow a substitution map for certain words, if the Dodgers lost you use a different map.
Etc. etc. etc.
It can be as crazy as you want and no one will ever be able to figure it out without coming across your own notes (or program) that use you to decode and encode shit. Or it can be as simple as "The red crow flies at midnight." and "But the bacon is nearly cooked.". It all hinges on knowing wtf to do with such a message, and getting all parties on the same page for that represents the key exchange.
I've not heard any explanation for how such systems prevent a man in the middle attack, I suspect the answer is simply that they don't.
Quantum secured transmission prevents eavesdroppers. Well, that's not entirely true either, it makes a very unstable communication situation that will be obviously disrupted in the case of an eavesdropper. While there are other techniques that can be used to make 2-party-only communications, quantum secured methods have the advantage that there is no known way to recreate a photon with the same properties as the one you had to intercept to XOR against that bit that was sent in a clear channel (assuming you even know which property is being used to modify the data feed).
Any location that the signal is decoded is vulnerable. Always has been, always will be. In practice, quantum secured communications are the modern take on one-time-pad crypto. Send the key by one channel, the data by another, and put the bulk of your effort in making sure that one of those is safe so that the other side is useless even if intercepted.
Alice sure as hell knew how to create that photon, and Bob either:
A: Knew what to expect in the message (or meta data) in order to verify that photon was legit.
B: Didn't actually verify shit.
If an attacker can't generate a specific photon, they can generate any photon and generate the data the same way Alice did.
The only way to detect such an attack is to have a timing window so tight that the attacker can't do that. The internet being what it is, and even dedicated fiber links being what they are, this won't work in practice. If you want to be secure you won't be able to communicate reliably. If you want to communicate reliably you'll have to accept reduced security.
A MITM attack is always possible if you send the key and the message over the line(s). Something has to be transmitted in a secure way before you can use it as a basis for securing further messages.
but it does provably let you discover that snooping has happened
Not it doesn't. Alice can't differentiate between Bob reading the message and an attacker performing a MITM attack.
If Alice can generate a message and transmit it over a wire so can anyone with access to the wire, regardless of whether you're sending electrons, photons, or tachyons. Exchanging keys over the wire will always be susceptible to MITM attacks. "Quantum" and "laser" don't help anymore than "leprechaun".
There are 2 ways to securely communicate.
1: Use a known and unbreakable encryption algorithm along with keys you've previously exchanged in a secure manner (in person, very quietly, without writing shit down, etc.).
2: Use an encryption algorithm known only to the parties intending to communicate. Try not to use ROT13. It's trivial to shit out an algorithm that is so complex and bizarre no one will ever figure it out, but hard to make one that is also easy to use without leaving shit for your enemies to find.
The ultimate end-game for both options is a one-time pad.
It's normal to has custom configurations between Windows, OS X and Linux, so why are they hurting the performance of "the many" over the weakness of the few?
They already have custom support for OS-specific features (e.g., OS X's full screen mode), so this would not be a new development.
Truth: It's bullshit they're feeding you because they want you to use ChromeOS on a branded Chromebook where GPU acceleration magically works. despite being the same hardware and drivers.
Bitcoin may not have any problems with the protocol - which is debatable - but the problem lies in the requirement for exchanges.
In order to be able to change Bitcoin into dollars and back to Bitcoins, the exchanges must, out of necessity, maintain a stock of Bitcoins that is server-accessible.
If it's server-accessible, it's hackable and subject to theft. If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel.
Also, from what I've read it appears that Bitcoin thefts are not reversible. This is especially problematic given that there is a finite supply of Bitcoins; no central authority can come in and save your Bitcoin "bank" if it is robbed, whereas if my local Wells Fargo down the street is robbed, the FDIC insures my deposits to the tune of $250,000 (which also comes in handy in case the bank fails entirely, which is an extremely rare occurrence.) Even if there was the equivalent of an FDIC for Bitcoin "banks", eventually they run out of Bitcoins they can pay back on insurance.
This, and myriad other problems with Bitcoint that have been enumerated on Slashdot ad nauseum, should really convince any rational-minded person that Bitcoin is entirely worthless.
Exchanges do not need to maintain a hot wallet.
They can (and should, I say) process all trades manually from an offline wallet. Yes, there'd be a delay before your trade is executed, but the only people who want instant trading are the market manipulators (just like with regular stock exchanges). Reasonable delays would be good for investors and users of Bitcoin, with the added bonus of an offline wallet with a person executing manual transactions being a hell of a lot more secure than a hot wallet.
rocks ... doesn't it.
This is what you wanted right?
Seriously, if you come here to talk about how this isn't a fundamental bitcoin problem, you deserve to have your noise smacked with newspaper like a dog.
The only 'benefit' bitcoin has is that its unregulated and not as well watched by the government ... which means its easy for people to just steal your money and lie about it ... I'm sorry, its easy for someone to setup an exchange and let someone else steal the coins from the 'hot wallet', whatever the fuck that is.
Before you open your mouth to defend bitcoin ....
THIS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOUR STUPID DUMB ASSES ABOUT, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP, ITS A SHITTY IDEA.
If you have cash in your wallet, and you lose that wallet, you lose that cash.
If you put your cash in someone else's wallet and they lose the wallet you lose the cash.
If you have Bitcoins in your wallet and you lose that wallet, you lose those Bitcoins.
If you put your Bitcoins in someone else's wallet and they lose the wallet you lose the Bitcoins.
The only "STUPID DUMB ASSES" that need to "SHUT THE FUCK UP" are people like you who don't understand the fundamentals of Bitcoin.
You really have no business speaking on the subject if you can't learn rule 1 about storing your Bitcoins - treat Bitcoins like cash.
Translation: I'm a fucking moron who fears and doesn't understand science.
Unless you've done the research and experimentation yourself, you don't understand the science either, you just choose to believe it.
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with people not trusting the government.
Complete Global Saturation!
So basically, if you start a messages session on your iphone, with another messages account and then for some unknown reason decide that you're not going to use your iPhone to continue the conversation but switch to a completely different phone that you're also paying for service on for some reason, you can't continue that conversation over messages. Of course, you can just send a text message from your other phone to your friend and keep going but I guess that's too difficult.
If you kept your number, your friend still on Messages will see your text in their Messages conversation and, when replying, will think it got sent to you but in reality it gets sent to your Message account which should be (but isn't) disabled.
As far as I can tell form the shitty summary, anyway.
Ben Kuchera is a fucking tool who has no business writing about anything. The same goes for Polygon.
Kuchera was one of the assmunches on the front lines defending MS's initial DRM and always-online schemes for the XBOX One.
His opinions were so bad and so obviously paid-for that he got kicked out of Penny Arcade for shit like this http://penny-arcade.com/report... (I think they pulled it down because it was so bad) and this https://twitter.com/BenKuchera... .
Penny fucking Arcade realized how shitty he was, Yes, that Penny Arcade. The one run by the no-standards shills that did an instant 180 from gamers to tools once MS started paying them. The PA that bullies its own fans and offers a kickstarter to remove ads from their massively-profitable website, with stretch goals to remove more ads, but still not all the ads.
Ben Kuchera's internet fame was spawned from PA, and he became such an insufferable goon that even PA realized he needed to be cut loose. He shat around Arse Technica for a while and now he's shitting it up at Polygon.
We all know games "journalism" is about one of the most laughable things ever, but Kuchera and Polygon represent the fucking highest echelon of shilling, shit-flinging, and all around douchebaggery. There is zero integrity involved with Polygon as a whole and with Kuchera as a person. You shouldn't simply distrust their reviews, news, opinions, etc., you should actively trust it to be complete and utter paid-for horseshit.
Me? I don't want sea salt. Not with all the mercury and PCBs floating around in the ocean. You think they refine it or anything? Nope, they just evaporate the water and package it.
I want the stuff that's been underground for millions of years, unmolested by humans until they dig it out. Give me the most refined, chemically pure salt they can possibly manufacture. Sodium and chlorine in equal amounts, that's it (well, maybe a bit of iodine as well).
You try telling one of the people in the store that sea salt may not be better. They'll chase you out of the shop with a slab of tofu!
This just in: All salt is sea salt.
This just in: No it isn't.
Nikon is still a step ahead! First post!
My crappy old Nikon D70s, consigned to the junk heap, says they could do better on build quality and components.
Consumer line = consumer quality.
Should have opted for the D700.
I'm at work, in my office. It's almost 5 and there are only a few people left here.
I leaned over in my chair to fart but I pooped my pants. I'm not talking about a shart. I'm talking about a Chicken McNugget sized turd.
What do I do, Slashdot?