Who owns this database? Who can add to it? Who can modify it? Who can see the contents of it?
The way it is done today is with standard relational databases. That method is not ideal, as even the summary mentions (it can take quite a while to backtrack through all the individual suppliers databases to find a common thread). With blockchain, the entire history is right there, in one place.
What idiocy. The vendor did not 'deliberately make hardware incompatible'. They made hardware that worked for what they were selling, which was a laptop with Windows 10 installed. No, they didn't check if it would work with Linux, they were not selling Linux. They probably also did not check if it worked with any of the BSDs, or Solaris, or iOS, or Android, or AIX, or Z/OS.
Yues, the simplest way to avoid it is to not buy it. But that is not what happened, is it? No. Instead of admitting they bought the wrong thing, we have idiots claiming that it is some Microsoft conspiracy, or defective hardware, or some other such nonsense.
The world is not going to stop releasing new hardware just because some OS doesn't work.
Uh, no. This had absolutely nothing to do with secure boot. The laptops in question had an SSD controller from Intel. Linux could not see the controller when it was in RAID mode. The BIOS did not provide a way to turn off RAID mode, so Linux didn't see the disk. You could still boot Linux from USB, etc, which would not be possible under your wonderful conspiracy theory. Intel has now released patches for their drivers, and now Linux can see the disk. Amazing!
So according to your brilliant analyses, a hardware vendor offering a piece of hardware that Linux did not support was a plot by Microsoft? I say 'did not support' because now Linux does support it, and there is no need to mess with the BIOS.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Credit unions have long term loans (eg 30-year mortagages), are regulated, and deposits are insured (by the NCUA). What makes them better is that they are non-profits owned and governed by the members of the CU. Therefore, the actions they take are for the benefit of the members, and not stockholders.
Except for the subscription scams (which I don't know catch the elderly more than anyone else), and the 'family members' scam (more later), ALL of those are based on fear. It is funny that you claim to be so wise, but you can't see that simple fact.
A young person that gets into financial trouble, or thinks he may need more money in the future, has options. Maybe he can get another job. Maybe he can make a legitimate but risky investment. Maybe he can sponge off the parents for a while. Maybe he can cut back on spending for a while until he has saved enough money. Maybe he declares bankruptcy and gets a fresh start after a few years.
An elderly person in financial trouble has no options. They may be physically unable to work, even if someone is willing to hire them. At that stage of life, a risky (high-paying) investment is as bad as a scam. There is no 'sponging' or 'cutting back' for a while, because the situation is NEVER going to improve. There is no time for a fresh start. The only available option may be 'give up your home and independence and go live in a county home'.
Now, if you don't think being in that situation causes enormous fear, you are an idiot. In these cases, the scammers aren't CAUSING the fear, they are EXPLOITING the existing fear. They are offering a way out of a dire situation, even if it 'sounds to good to be true'. Of course the scam may seem like a TERRIBLE option, but it may also seem like the ONLY option. Their choice may be down to 'lose my home to taxes and medical bills and go live in the county home', or 'lose my money to a scammer and go live in the county home'. One of the at least APPEARS to offer a way out, and if it doesn't the outcome is the same anyway.
As for the family member scam, that is again fear. Namely fear of being forgetten or ill-remembered.
You want to keep your parents or grandparents from falling victim to a scam? Try TALKING to them, and not in a condescending 'you are not very smart' or 'you are too gullible' manner. Find out what their fears are, and see if there is anything you can do to ease them. And if you talk to them regularly and let them know what you are doing, they are going to be less vulnerable to a 'needs help' scam. Of course, your method of just blaming them requires much less effort on your part.
For one thing, you don't want to have the plane end up in a big pile of sand. People need to get off (and away from) the plane. Not easy to do if they have to walk/run through sand. Emergency vehicles need to get to the plane. Are you going to have fire engines and ambulances driving through sand?
They need to be able to keep the thing clear of snow and ice. Going to drive a runway snowplow through sand?
There is a requirement that the arresting action is predictable. A pile of dry sand is going to act much different than a pile that has been rained on for a week. A pile is frozen sand is going to be practically worthless.
I bet the engineers at these evil proprietary companies (and their pawns at the FAA) could figure this stuff out.
Oh please. This has nothing to do with how 'street smart' older people are. What a stupid thing to say. It has to do with fear. Older people are naturally risk-averse, and the things many of them value most are their homes and their independence. You threaten to take away either of those things and you trigger a very strong fear response. Even if they suspect it is a scam the risk of losing some money is nothing compared to the risk of losing their home or independence.
The things that make them 'rather obvious scams' to you may not indicate 'rather obvious scam' to someone in a different situation, regardless of any 'mental health issues'. The fact you can't understand that is a character flaw on your part, not theirs.
Things that mark it as 'obvious scam':
They called you instead of sending a letter, etc. - Maybe the person already has debt problems and is used to getting collection calls demanding payment. Whats one more caller? Maybe the person actually HAS tax problems and has received a letter, but has not taken any action.
Indian caller who barely speaks english - 25 years ago if you called customer service for any company you spoke to someone in the US who could speak english. Then companies started contracting out those call centers to India. There was no great announcement that this was happening, but when you called the same number you always called you were now talking to someone in India. Everyone knows their are government contractors. Is it entirely beyond reason that the government would do the same as those companies did? No.
Method of payment - 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable to pay McDonalds or a vending machine with a credit card, now it is commonplace. A very short time ago it would be unthinkable that you just tap your phone and a payment is made, now it is commonplace. It used to be if you wanted a CVS gift card you went to CVS, now you can buy a CVS card at Lowes. Maybe the method of payment requested seems unusual or odd, but is it really any more odd than buying a Coke with a phone?
In short, the more changes you have witnessed in your lifetime the less 'odd' any new changes seem. Things that to YOU may be giant red flags are just another change in an endless stream of changes.
And even if they DO think something is odd they may pay anyway. Most older people are risk averse, and the things they value most are their home and their independence. Threaten to take either of those away and you have triggered a very strong fear response. The risk of losing a little money to a scam pales in comparison to losing their home or independence, so they pay.
So why don't they ask for help if they suspect a scam? Because of assholes like you that think that is a sign they need to be 'taken care of and protected', thereby losing their independence.
Unlike you, the law has concepts such as 'normal operation'. If you post something on the web, 'normal operation' of the web involves those things, and so you can't claim infringement.
RTFA. They discovered this was happening because they were alerted that copies of the movies were appearing on file sharing sites. That is not 'industry insiders' getting access, it is everyone.
The Time Warner/Timer Warner Cable split had nothing to do with antitrust problems. Time Warner was primarily a content business, and the capital (and debt) heavy cable business was a bad fit. So they spun it off.
Did you even read what you wrote? The phrase "I'm on autopilot" means you HAVE a metaphorical autopilot which is doing the work, so you don't have to be paying attention. And it is exactly this common usage which is the problem, because when you have a Tesla autopilot you do need to pay full attention. You seem to think the phrase means you ARE an autopilot, and thus are not paying attention. You are probably the only one with that bad a misunderstanding of the phrase.
He is referring to storage protect keys, which were present in the 360 architecture from the start (originally as a feature). For every 2K block of storage there is an associated 4-bit key, and if the 'current' key (in the PSW) does not match the key for the addressed block, a program check interrupt is raised.
In fact, there is no question of how safe and reliable Java is, and nobody that knows what they are taking about has recommended removing Java. The problem with 'Java' is that malicious code can exploit weaknesses in the sandbox (which is not written in Java). The solution is to not run untrusted code, ie disable the browner plugin.
Protection from malicious code is far different than protection from programming bugs that allow inputs to cause malicious operation.
Other than stupid 'cape does not allow user to fly' labels, no manufacturer is required to list any capabilities his product does NOT have. That would be incredibly stupid.
All brands made up, I don't know what is actually in this product. But the point stands: you are only required to buy one thing, and that is the manufactured product. Adding an OS is no different than adding memory, other than you don't happen to like it. If you don't like the product the manufacturer is offering, DON'T BUY IT. Is that really so difficult a concept?
What do you think the FTC will do? Nothing. The thing was advertised as a PC with Windows 10, and that is what you got. The fact that you WANTED something else (ie, you bought the wrong thing) does not warrant FTC, or BBB, or anyone elses action.
You clearly have no idea what profit margin is, if you think it can exceed (or even reach) 100%. The margin is the percentage of the PRICE that is profit. If the thing costs $30 to make, and they sell it for $600, that is a 95% margin.
It does not 'dramatically change' anything, your reading just sucks. While you were so busy looking for idiotic ways to interpret the presence or lack of a comma you completely missed the words WITHOUT CONSENT. So, yes, it makes PERFECT sense that using 'existing' devices WITHOUT CONSENT is a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Who owns this database? Who can add to it? Who can modify it? Who can see the contents of it?
The way it is done today is with standard relational databases. That method is not ideal, as even the summary mentions (it can take quite a while to backtrack through all the individual suppliers databases to find a common thread). With blockchain, the entire history is right there, in one place.
What idiocy. The vendor did not 'deliberately make hardware incompatible'. They made hardware that worked for what they were selling, which was a laptop with Windows 10 installed. No, they didn't check if it would work with Linux, they were not selling Linux. They probably also did not check if it worked with any of the BSDs, or Solaris, or iOS, or Android, or AIX, or Z/OS.
Yues, the simplest way to avoid it is to not buy it. But that is not what happened, is it? No. Instead of admitting they bought the wrong thing, we have idiots claiming that it is some Microsoft conspiracy, or defective hardware, or some other such nonsense.
The world is not going to stop releasing new hardware just because some OS doesn't work.
Uh, no. This had absolutely nothing to do with secure boot. The laptops in question had an SSD controller from Intel. Linux could not see the controller when it was in RAID mode. The BIOS did not provide a way to turn off RAID mode, so Linux didn't see the disk. You could still boot Linux from USB, etc, which would not be possible under your wonderful conspiracy theory. Intel has now released patches for their drivers, and now Linux can see the disk. Amazing!
So according to your brilliant analyses, a hardware vendor offering a piece of hardware that Linux did not support was a plot by Microsoft? I say 'did not support' because now Linux does support it, and there is no need to mess with the BIOS.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Credit unions have long term loans (eg 30-year mortagages), are regulated, and deposits are insured (by the NCUA). What makes them better is that they are non-profits owned and governed by the members of the CU. Therefore, the actions they take are for the benefit of the members, and not stockholders.
Except for the subscription scams (which I don't know catch the elderly more than anyone else), and the 'family members' scam (more later), ALL of those are based on fear. It is funny that you claim to be so wise, but you can't see that simple fact.
A young person that gets into financial trouble, or thinks he may need more money in the future, has options. Maybe he can get another job. Maybe he can make a legitimate but risky investment. Maybe he can sponge off the parents for a while. Maybe he can cut back on spending for a while until he has saved enough money. Maybe he declares bankruptcy and gets a fresh start after a few years.
An elderly person in financial trouble has no options. They may be physically unable to work, even if someone is willing to hire them. At that stage of life, a risky (high-paying) investment is as bad as a scam. There is no 'sponging' or 'cutting back' for a while, because the situation is NEVER going to improve. There is no time for a fresh start. The only available option may be 'give up your home and independence and go live in a county home'.
Now, if you don't think being in that situation causes enormous fear, you are an idiot. In these cases, the scammers aren't CAUSING the fear, they are EXPLOITING the existing fear. They are offering a way out of a dire situation, even if it 'sounds to good to be true'. Of course the scam may seem like a TERRIBLE option, but it may also seem like the ONLY option. Their choice may be down to 'lose my home to taxes and medical bills and go live in the county home', or 'lose my money to a scammer and go live in the county home'. One of the at least APPEARS to offer a way out, and if it doesn't the outcome is the same anyway.
As for the family member scam, that is again fear. Namely fear of being forgetten or ill-remembered.
You want to keep your parents or grandparents from falling victim to a scam? Try TALKING to them, and not in a condescending 'you are not very smart' or 'you are too gullible' manner. Find out what their fears are, and see if there is anything you can do to ease them. And if you talk to them regularly and let them know what you are doing, they are going to be less vulnerable to a 'needs help' scam. Of course, your method of just blaming them requires much less effort on your part.
For one thing, you don't want to have the plane end up in a big pile of sand. People need to get off (and away from) the plane. Not easy to do if they have to walk/run through sand. Emergency vehicles need to get to the plane. Are you going to have fire engines and ambulances driving through sand?
They need to be able to keep the thing clear of snow and ice. Going to drive a runway snowplow through sand?
There is a requirement that the arresting action is predictable. A pile of dry sand is going to act much different than a pile that has been rained on for a week. A pile is frozen sand is going to be practically worthless.
I bet the engineers at these evil proprietary companies (and their pawns at the FAA) could figure this stuff out.
Oh please. This has nothing to do with how 'street smart' older people are. What a stupid thing to say. It has to do with fear. Older people are naturally risk-averse, and the things many of them value most are their homes and their independence. You threaten to take away either of those things and you trigger a very strong fear response. Even if they suspect it is a scam the risk of losing some money is nothing compared to the risk of losing their home or independence.
The things that make them 'rather obvious scams' to you may not indicate 'rather obvious scam' to someone in a different situation, regardless of any 'mental health issues'. The fact you can't understand that is a character flaw on your part, not theirs.
Things that mark it as 'obvious scam':
They called you instead of sending a letter, etc. - Maybe the person already has debt problems and is used to getting collection calls demanding payment. Whats one more caller? Maybe the person actually HAS tax problems and has received a letter, but has not taken any action.
Indian caller who barely speaks english - 25 years ago if you called customer service for any company you spoke to someone in the US who could speak english. Then companies started contracting out those call centers to India. There was no great announcement that this was happening, but when you called the same number you always called you were now talking to someone in India. Everyone knows their are government contractors. Is it entirely beyond reason that the government would do the same as those companies did? No.
Method of payment - 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable to pay McDonalds or a vending machine with a credit card, now it is commonplace. A very short time ago it would be unthinkable that you just tap your phone and a payment is made, now it is commonplace. It used to be if you wanted a CVS gift card you went to CVS, now you can buy a CVS card at Lowes. Maybe the method of payment requested seems unusual or odd, but is it really any more odd than buying a Coke with a phone?
In short, the more changes you have witnessed in your lifetime the less 'odd' any new changes seem. Things that to YOU may be giant red flags are just another change in an endless stream of changes.
And even if they DO think something is odd they may pay anyway. Most older people are risk averse, and the things they value most are their home and their independence. Threaten to take either of those away and you have triggered a very strong fear response. The risk of losing a little money to a scam pales in comparison to losing their home or independence, so they pay.
So why don't they ask for help if they suspect a scam? Because of assholes like you that think that is a sign they need to be 'taken care of and protected', thereby losing their independence.
Unlike you, the law has concepts such as 'normal operation'. If you post something on the web, 'normal operation' of the web involves those things, and so you can't claim infringement.
RTFA. They discovered this was happening because they were alerted that copies of the movies were appearing on file sharing sites. That is not 'industry insiders' getting access, it is everyone.
Probably the address they have for the person is 'c/o Innovative Artists'.
Isn't '8 bit depth' already accounted for in '3 bytes per pixel'? If so, your calculation is 8x too high.
That would be so much wittier and insightful if only Time Warner Cable had anything to do with this story.
Do tell what 'effective monopoly' you think Time Warner has.
The Time Warner/Timer Warner Cable split had nothing to do with antitrust problems. Time Warner was primarily a content business, and the capital (and debt) heavy cable business was a bad fit. So they spun it off.
Did you even read what you wrote? The phrase "I'm on autopilot" means you HAVE a metaphorical autopilot which is doing the work, so you don't have to be paying attention. And it is exactly this common usage which is the problem, because when you have a Tesla autopilot you do need to pay full attention. You seem to think the phrase means you ARE an autopilot, and thus are not paying attention. You are probably the only one with that bad a misunderstanding of the phrase.
He is referring to storage protect keys, which were present in the 360 architecture from the start (originally as a feature). For every 2K block of storage there is an associated 4-bit key, and if the 'current' key (in the PSW) does not match the key for the addressed block, a program check interrupt is raised.
In fact, there is no question of how safe and reliable Java is, and nobody that knows what they are taking about has recommended removing Java. The problem with 'Java' is that malicious code can exploit weaknesses in the sandbox (which is not written in Java). The solution is to not run untrusted code, ie disable the browner plugin.
Protection from malicious code is far different than protection from programming bugs that allow inputs to cause malicious operation.
Eh, no. It is Instruction Set Architecture. It is how a processor looks to a program, regardless of how it is implemented internally.
Other than stupid 'cape does not allow user to fly' labels, no manufacturer is required to list any capabilities his product does NOT have. That would be incredibly stupid.
Well then, these PCs should certainly be illegal! After all, when I buy one I am also required to buy:
Intel processor
Samsung memory
WD hard drive
Broadcom Wifi
Panasonic battery
Sharp LCD display
All brands made up, I don't know what is actually in this product. But the point stands: you are only required to buy one thing, and that is the manufactured product. Adding an OS is no different than adding memory, other than you don't happen to like it. If you don't like the product the manufacturer is offering, DON'T BUY IT. Is that really so difficult a concept?
What do you think the FTC will do? Nothing. The thing was advertised as a PC with Windows 10, and that is what you got. The fact that you WANTED something else (ie, you bought the wrong thing) does not warrant FTC, or BBB, or anyone elses action.
You clearly have no idea what profit margin is, if you think it can exceed (or even reach) 100%. The margin is the percentage of the PRICE that is profit. If the thing costs $30 to make, and they sell it for $600, that is a 95% margin.
It does not 'dramatically change' anything, your reading just sucks. While you were so busy looking for idiotic ways to interpret the presence or lack of a comma you completely missed the words WITHOUT CONSENT. So, yes, it makes PERFECT sense that using 'existing' devices WITHOUT CONSENT is a crime.