Compare the actual physical damage done by dumping 110 million tons of coal ash into our back yards vs a few lobbyists sitting around chatting about nuclear power with congressional staffers over expensive lattes. Interview the people who lived near Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl for a human perspective on nuclear power. Maybe concentrate on the survivors, as the dead tell no tales.
Yes, let's compare nuclear and coal.
Per Wikipedia there were fewer than 10,000 deaths from Chernobyl.
Per the US Dept of Labor2016 was the first year with fewer than 100,000 coal miner deaths in the US. The peak 100 years ago was nearly 1 million per year.
So, yeah, lets compare 10,000 deaths from nuclear power to 10,000,000 deaths just from coal mining alone. I just can't believe how irrational people are about this topic.
Nah, it's the reverse. You by the game on disc, then it downloads the 50 GB anyway before you can play, since games are nothing but patches. But you still can't play without the disc.
Hard to say, there are many thousands of games on Steam. All AAA games have DRM, Steam or not, except for CD Projekt Red games, which are DRM-free, Steam or not.
These places literally glow in the dark and will kill life within minutes.
More radioactive material is emitted by coal plants than by nuclear plants worldwide. Does spreading out the health consequences over the nation, rather than having a really bad problem in one area, make it better? Oh, coal also has really bad problems in specific areas: the various "mouth of Hell" sites where a mine caught fire, and the site will keep burning for decades, perhaps centuries.
Dell/EMC doesn't own VMWare, they are separate entities.
When I worked at VMware, there were massive layoff when EMC got a new president and needed to pad his bonus. That's the only meaningful definition of being EMC's bitch.
The New Microsoft Feudalism: You own NOTHING, they own EVERYTHING, and you RENT IT from them. Don't like it? Starve, peasant.
Nothing about this is new. You can buy a disc, but the game does not come on the disc - the entire game is downloaded anyway, except maybe a few art assets that weren't patched. Almost every modern game is always-online, so what good would the disc do you anyhow.
You are longing for a time that has already passed you by, several years ago.
" it's been understood that attacking the moral strength of the enemy is just as valuable as attacking the enemy soldiers or logistics." - Yet never demonstrated effectively. Every war was fought physically anyway.
The US won every major battle throughout the war in Vietnam. Then we surrendered and left. That is straight from Clausewitz on how a weaker foe can defeat a stronger, when it's not "total war".
They are two different concepts : influencing people with propaganda to weaken them, and actually attacking their physical resources to make them capitulate.
It was pretty well demonstrated in WWI that attacking the enemy's infrastructure makes little difference. We bombed a shitload of German factories, only to have them back a week later. Only logistical "choke points" help. Bombing the same factories every week didn't help, but cutting off Germany's supply of e.g. tungsten helped a lot.
Attacking civilian resources only causes capitulation if moral strength fails. As long as morale or determination persists, the war continues.
You can kill all the enemy soldiers. You can destroy military logistics so that the soldiers run out of bullets or food. You can destroy the will to fight.
At least, that's "total war". You can of course attack civilian infrastructure of a stronger power in hope they will judge the cost of the conflict to exceed the gains. Seems to have the opposite effect, however, more often than not. People tend to get very pissed at that sort of thing, and form a strong desire to hit back harder.
Cyber warfare is the latter. Information warfare is the former. They are distinct despite your Clausewitz reference. That's why we have different responses to them.
Entirely different types of conflict cannot be readily conflated even by the well-meaning ignorant.
Don't take my work for it, listen to these guys: https://youtu.be/qOTYgcdNrXE?t... The interview with the 4-star General on this topic is enlightening.
Social media and public perception have nothing to do with infrastructure hacks and cyber-warfare really. You're conflating a propaganda campaign with the actual warfare that would follow.
They are both the "cyber domain" in modern warfare. As far back as Clausewitz it's been understood that attacking the moral strength of the enemy is just as valuable as attacking the enemy soldiers or logistics. But more than that: social media is often the fastest way information gets around in the modern world, and the modern battlefield is all about acting faster than your opponent can obtain the information to make a decision.
When it goes off, the internet GOES OFF. There will be no social media for a few days. There MAY be no power/water for a few days, airline flights, etc. THAT is what we're talking about.
Perhaps. But that's more of an act of desperation than of efficiently fighting a war. If you're going to invade an ally of a major power, you want them to be unsure of what you've done until it's too late. Doubt is your weapon at first.
And connecting utilities infrastructure to the internet will always be stupid. You don't need your own internet to solve that problem, you need that stuff off of any internet whatsoever.
When I worked in Silly Valley I kept my rent down to 1/4th my income. The commute was a bitch, but I saved a lot. Then I realized I didn't need to live in such a stupid place, and moved on while not making meaningfully less.
Or at least make it more blatant when external powers are messing about.
It's well worth noting that the modern US military (and probably many others) sees the "cyber domain" as just as important a domain of warfare as air, land, sea an space. And specifically, manipulation of civilian perspective, not just hacking enemy comms.
Russia's manipulation of public perception as they walked into the Ukraine--they did very simple things like remove patches from their uniforms--to keep it uncertain for a couple of days that it really was Russia is seen as the future of conflict. It doesn't matter if the truth comes out in a couple of days: sewing doubt about what's really going on for just a short time is enough for a quick military action to be over before public outrage begins.
It's a strange new world, but manipulation of social media and public perception can't be ignored any more than "space" on the modern battlefield.
Yes. It's like any resource that's obviously shared with other people. Even if you can technically take all you want, you probably shouldn't. Life is not a game to be exploited for maximum personal gain without regard to others. Not to say that it would violate any TOS, just to say "don't be a dick".
That speculative execution as a concept is flawed and insecure.
It's great as a concept, and there's nothing about the concept that's inherently insecure. It was just implemented with a blind unconcern for security that isn't really excusable in any project that started after 2000 or so.
all because Intel wanted to win the megahertz war of the late '90s.
That's exactly the opposite of true. Speculative execution is entirely about "get the most done with each clock cycle", the opposite of ramping up clock cycles meaninglessly since little gets done on each.
There's no shortage of land. Real estate prices are a measure of the popularity of a specific location. In the 1800s, we had to clump together in huge cities on the water, because that's how 19th century industry worked. Now, not so much.
Because that's where all of the other educated people live.
I can't speak for other countries (I think OP was talking Germany), but in the US that's just arrogance.
But if you care to interact with other people, and do interesting things involving other people, you probably want to live on the coasts for now, because that's where the greatest concentration of educated people live.
The key number would be ratio of cost of an investigation vs. cost of an undetected ongoing scam. As this is rent (expensive bene), they can and should be investigating _all_of_them_, about once/year. Same as SS disability grifters in the USA. But first they should investigate the government 'workers' assigned to investigate the scumbags. They are always a big part of the problem.
The cost of fraud within Medicaid is much higher than private insurance fraud. However, the administrative cost is much lower. Turns out the total is about the same. It's not just the cost of investigation, it's the ongoing cost of more elaborate paperwork and process in the name of fraud prevention. Much better to have the simpler solution if it ends up costing the same - optimize for the normal people, don't punish them just to punish the grifters too.
Automated fraud detection has great promise to be the best of both worlds. However, a freaking 20% false positive rate completely fails it. If your false positive rate is higher than your actual fraud rate, that means a "positive" fraud result means "someone who probably isn't committing fraud". You damn well better not make them prove their innocence when you don't have probable cause.
Plenty of stuff is interesting even if you can't be sure whether it's true. The political stuff on Slashdot is worthless except as debate practice, but there's still plenty of technical/scientific stuff. I've learned a lot over the years from looking into "shit some guy on the internet said". When you get away from politics and economics, it's much easier to verify stuff and decide who has earned your trust.
E.g., I completely flipped my opinion on dark matter and dark evergy thanks to some smart-sounding Slashdot posts. I didn't believe the posts at face value, but it started me on a journey to understand the underlying cosmology, physics, and data well enough to have an informed opinion. Now I can sometimes spot errors in shows like PBS Space Time (which to its great credit tries to acknowledge errors in later episodes).
Slashdot Mirror
Can we get more stories that don't include any of these companies: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon
Sure! Half the stories will be about BitCoin, Net Neutrality, gender imbalance in STEM, and global warming.
Hey, it's better than the days where half the stories were Jon Katz's blog! (And fuck me, that was 20 years ago. When did I get old?)
How is it legal to sell an exploit?
They mostly sell to governments. Funny how the legal problems just don't come up.
Compare the actual physical damage done by dumping 110 million tons of coal ash into our back yards vs a few lobbyists sitting around chatting about nuclear power with congressional staffers over expensive lattes.
Interview the people who lived near Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl for a human perspective on nuclear power. Maybe concentrate on the survivors, as the dead tell no tales.
Yes, let's compare nuclear and coal.
Per Wikipedia there were fewer than 10,000 deaths from Chernobyl.
Per the US Dept of Labor2016 was the first year with fewer than 100,000 coal miner deaths in the US. The peak 100 years ago was nearly 1 million per year.
So, yeah, lets compare 10,000 deaths from nuclear power to 10,000,000 deaths just from coal mining alone. I just can't believe how irrational people are about this topic.
Nah, it's the reverse. You by the game on disc, then it downloads the 50 GB anyway before you can play, since games are nothing but patches. But you still can't play without the disc.
Hard to say, there are many thousands of games on Steam. All AAA games have DRM, Steam or not, except for CD Projekt Red games, which are DRM-free, Steam or not.
These places literally glow in the dark and will kill life within minutes.
More radioactive material is emitted by coal plants than by nuclear plants worldwide. Does spreading out the health consequences over the nation, rather than having a really bad problem in one area, make it better? Oh, coal also has really bad problems in specific areas: the various "mouth of Hell" sites where a mine caught fire, and the site will keep burning for decades, perhaps centuries.
Dell/EMC doesn't own VMWare, they are separate entities.
When I worked at VMware, there were massive layoff when EMC got a new president and needed to pad his bonus. That's the only meaningful definition of being EMC's bitch.
The New Microsoft Feudalism: You own NOTHING, they own EVERYTHING, and you RENT IT from them. Don't like it? Starve, peasant.
Nothing about this is new. You can buy a disc, but the game does not come on the disc - the entire game is downloaded anyway, except maybe a few art assets that weren't patched. Almost every modern game is always-online, so what good would the disc do you anyhow.
You are longing for a time that has already passed you by, several years ago.
" it's been understood that attacking the moral strength of the enemy is just as valuable as attacking the enemy soldiers or logistics." - Yet never demonstrated effectively. Every war was fought physically anyway.
The US won every major battle throughout the war in Vietnam. Then we surrendered and left. That is straight from Clausewitz on how a weaker foe can defeat a stronger, when it's not "total war".
They are two different concepts : influencing people with propaganda to weaken them, and actually attacking their physical resources to make them capitulate.
It was pretty well demonstrated in WWI that attacking the enemy's infrastructure makes little difference. We bombed a shitload of German factories, only to have them back a week later. Only logistical "choke points" help. Bombing the same factories every week didn't help, but cutting off Germany's supply of e.g. tungsten helped a lot.
Attacking civilian resources only causes capitulation if moral strength fails. As long as morale or determination persists, the war continues.
You can kill all the enemy soldiers. You can destroy military logistics so that the soldiers run out of bullets or food. You can destroy the will to fight.
At least, that's "total war". You can of course attack civilian infrastructure of a stronger power in hope they will judge the cost of the conflict to exceed the gains. Seems to have the opposite effect, however, more often than not. People tend to get very pissed at that sort of thing, and form a strong desire to hit back harder.
Cyber warfare is the latter. Information warfare is the former. They are distinct despite your Clausewitz reference. That's why we have different responses to them.
Entirely different types of conflict cannot be readily conflated even by the well-meaning ignorant.
Don't take my work for it, listen to these guys: https://youtu.be/qOTYgcdNrXE?t... The interview with the 4-star General on this topic is enlightening.
The flip side is there's no justification for outrage when the "unlimited" plan is suddenly cancelled. Tragedy of the commons, really.
Social media and public perception have nothing to do with infrastructure hacks and cyber-warfare really. You're conflating a propaganda campaign with the actual warfare that would follow.
They are both the "cyber domain" in modern warfare. As far back as Clausewitz it's been understood that attacking the moral strength of the enemy is just as valuable as attacking the enemy soldiers or logistics. But more than that: social media is often the fastest way information gets around in the modern world, and the modern battlefield is all about acting faster than your opponent can obtain the information to make a decision.
When it goes off, the internet GOES OFF. There will be no social media for a few days. There MAY be no power/water for a few days, airline flights, etc. THAT is what we're talking about.
Perhaps. But that's more of an act of desperation than of efficiently fighting a war. If you're going to invade an ally of a major power, you want them to be unsure of what you've done until it's too late. Doubt is your weapon at first.
And connecting utilities infrastructure to the internet will always be stupid. You don't need your own internet to solve that problem, you need that stuff off of any internet whatsoever.
When I worked in Silly Valley I kept my rent down to 1/4th my income. The commute was a bitch, but I saved a lot. Then I realized I didn't need to live in such a stupid place, and moved on while not making meaningfully less.
Do you feel the same way about electricity?
Backend storage is a tangible resource. Bandwidth (well, routers) is a tangible resource.
Or at least make it more blatant when external powers are messing about.
It's well worth noting that the modern US military (and probably many others) sees the "cyber domain" as just as important a domain of warfare as air, land, sea an space. And specifically, manipulation of civilian perspective, not just hacking enemy comms.
Russia's manipulation of public perception as they walked into the Ukraine--they did very simple things like remove patches from their uniforms--to keep it uncertain for a couple of days that it really was Russia is seen as the future of conflict. It doesn't matter if the truth comes out in a couple of days: sewing doubt about what's really going on for just a short time is enough for a quick military action to be over before public outrage begins.
It's a strange new world, but manipulation of social media and public perception can't be ignored any more than "space" on the modern battlefield.
Yes. It's like any resource that's obviously shared with other people. Even if you can technically take all you want, you probably shouldn't. Life is not a game to be exploited for maximum personal gain without regard to others. Not to say that it would violate any TOS, just to say "don't be a dick".
Then what did they mean by unlimited?
They meant "but don't be a dick". Now it means "this is why we can't have nice things".
That speculative execution as a concept is flawed and insecure.
It's great as a concept, and there's nothing about the concept that's inherently insecure. It was just implemented with a blind unconcern for security that isn't really excusable in any project that started after 2000 or so.
all because Intel wanted to win the megahertz war of the late '90s.
That's exactly the opposite of true. Speculative execution is entirely about "get the most done with each clock cycle", the opposite of ramping up clock cycles meaninglessly since little gets done on each.
There's no shortage of land. Real estate prices are a measure of the popularity of a specific location. In the 1800s, we had to clump together in huge cities on the water, because that's how 19th century industry worked. Now, not so much.
In sane places, you keep rent down to 1/4 of your income. But then, in sane places people don't shit in the streets.
Well, clearly that's California's solution. And heck, they might be better off for it in 50 years. But I won't be living there in the meantime.
Because that's where all of the other educated people live.
I can't speak for other countries (I think OP was talking Germany), but in the US that's just arrogance.
But if you care to interact with other people, and do interesting things involving other people, you probably want to live on the coasts for now, because that's where the greatest concentration of educated people live.
Bigot.
I get the joke, but by definition "probable cause" needs to be more than 50%. This is the usual problem with profiling, of course.
The key number would be ratio of cost of an investigation vs. cost of an undetected ongoing scam. As this is rent (expensive bene), they can and should be investigating _all_of_them_, about once/year. Same as SS disability grifters in the USA. But first they should investigate the government 'workers' assigned to investigate the scumbags. They are always a big part of the problem.
The cost of fraud within Medicaid is much higher than private insurance fraud. However, the administrative cost is much lower. Turns out the total is about the same. It's not just the cost of investigation, it's the ongoing cost of more elaborate paperwork and process in the name of fraud prevention. Much better to have the simpler solution if it ends up costing the same - optimize for the normal people, don't punish them just to punish the grifters too.
Automated fraud detection has great promise to be the best of both worlds. However, a freaking 20% false positive rate completely fails it. If your false positive rate is higher than your actual fraud rate, that means a "positive" fraud result means "someone who probably isn't committing fraud". You damn well better not make them prove their innocence when you don't have probable cause.
Plenty of stuff is interesting even if you can't be sure whether it's true. The political stuff on Slashdot is worthless except as debate practice, but there's still plenty of technical/scientific stuff. I've learned a lot over the years from looking into "shit some guy on the internet said". When you get away from politics and economics, it's much easier to verify stuff and decide who has earned your trust.
E.g., I completely flipped my opinion on dark matter and dark evergy thanks to some smart-sounding Slashdot posts. I didn't believe the posts at face value, but it started me on a journey to understand the underlying cosmology, physics, and data well enough to have an informed opinion. Now I can sometimes spot errors in shows like PBS Space Time (which to its great credit tries to acknowledge errors in later episodes).