There's an extra wrinkle: it's downright trivial to make your own new 'coin'(at least if it's a close clone of one of the existing ones; making more significant architectural changes would obviously be a bigger job). There are even handy web interfaces that will make them for you; just plug in your parameters and go.
However, creating a new variant doesn't affect the scarcity of the existing variant: there are more 'coins' in circulation overall; but 'coins' from one fork can always be distinguished from those of the other; so the scarcity of Fork X 'coins' remains the same; but now there are Fork Y 'coins' as well.
The really scarce resource is interest: as noted, having your own pet 'coin' and blockchain is extremely trivial; but also likely to be worthless because you can't pass it off as being the 'real thing'; and nobody else cares about it. This incident is somewhat notable not in that it's the creation of yet another cryptocurrency variant(which happens all the time); but that there was enough discontent with the existing arrangement that the fork has actually attracted some attention and isn't completely worthless.
I don't know if that is still a thing. UEFI Graphics Output Protocol has the knives out for VESA mode; though I don't know how many, if any, devices are now VESA-free; as opposed to supporting both.
Silly communist. "Personal responsibility" means paying whatever your betters say you owe. Malfeasance doesn't exist; and alleged 'mistakes' are fake news.
Actually, 'securitization' and resale(often multiple layers) of debt has been a very, very, popular trend; and at least in property mortgages, led to quite a few situations where nobody seemed to have any idea(much less be willing to tell the borrower) who was actually supposed to be getting paid; had a claim to the collateral in the event of a default, etc.
Making a loan and then keeping it on your books for the duration of its repayment period is increasingly quaint. That's one of the reasons why the time-saving "just make it up" method of bookkeeping became popular. Standards of documentation designed under the assumption that creditors would retain loans became cumbersome when they were chopping them up and reselling them; so they decided to adopt more convenient standards.
The fact that PowerVR-based Atoms have worthless driver support is Intel's fault: Microsoft's contribution to the debacle is creating a situation where upgrading the OS actually shortens the support window. If running Win8.1, these devices would get the pre "windows as a service" treatment; which in the case of 8.1 is mainstream support until 1/09/2018; extended support until 1/10/2023; if running Windows 10, a given major update gets only "at least 18 months"; after which you are potentially out of luck unless you can move to the next major update. And, since 'feature' and 'security' updates are now being aggregated; having a GPU with drivers that don't play nice with some aspect of WDDM means no security updates.
Intel's support for the PowerVR-based Atoms has always been shamefully bad; and they deserve full blame for that; but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's big push for Win10 upgrades...doesn't look so good...for hardware where it now(well after users made the choice, and without any way for them to know) means that Win10 devices will fall out of support faster than Win8.1 devices will.
It's also not a favorable anecdote for the 'Windows' glorious stable driver interface!' argument that always gets trotted out: It's not a huge surprise that an older part that always had shit support isn't getting shiny new drivers with WDDM 2.2 support; but Win10 1703 has apparently changed enough that those parts, which do have functioning drivers for earlier WDDM versions(probably 1.2 or 1.3; since they were introduced to support Win8; maybe 2.0 depending on how much polish they received for Win10) can't even continue to offer the features that they previously offered if you update to version 1703; while they did work in 1607.
That sort of stability an backward compatibility used to be something that Microsoft at least tried at and cared about; the change isn't a flattering one. Entirely in keeping with Microsoft's Apple-envy approach of late; but not a good thing.
Some people just make dumb mistakes. Others read the (admittedly pretty cool) descriptions of the mathematical properties of cryptocurrencies and foolishly assume that those properties somehow rub off on the decidedly less elegant infrastructure on which basically everything done with the cryptocurrencies depends.
I'm not sure what the exact breakdown is; but it's practically a business model for the 'exchanges': Get people to hand you the mathematically validated cryptographic stuff in exchange for IOUs denominated in whatever coin is trendy; then people are all surprised when those IOUs have no special properties whatsoever; and can be changed just as easily as anything else on a poorly secured web server.
Yes, in the sense that it's scarcer. "Not so much", in the sense that you've just told everyone that you can, and will, disappear chunks of their invisible internet money that you find suspicious.
When your value depends mostly on confidence, that's a risky move.
If there is an issue that keeps process termination and cleanup from being properly parallelized; I can understand why that might cause unexpectedly poor utilization of additional cores for computationally intensive tasks that also massacre lots of processes; but why would that cause the GUI to stop responding?
Unless moving the cursor also depends on terminating a bunch of processes; and hangs until that task is finished, wouldn't the inefficiency imposed on the build process be expected to keep the GUI more responsive; by preventing it from occupying as much CPU time as it otherwise would?
Am I just confused? Does keeping the desktop and cursor drawn actually involve lots of time sensitive process killing? Does this indeed not make sense?
The thing to remember is that most artists don't get paid that long(despite copyright terms indeed being ridiculous); because somebody has to care enough about their work to pay for it.
The rock stars get to coast on their back catalogs; but the people who can be replaced by anonymous filler without audience displeasure probably aren't them;
I suspect that your sentiment may have something to do with why they are so particularly displeased by the idea:
If Spotify is just doing something dubiously legal; Team RIAA can sue them into a smoking crater and call it a day; it'd hardly be the first time that has happened.
If there are genres where some adequately competent musicians banging together a work for hire are considered by listeners to be an acceptable substitute for "real" artists; and can be used for 95 years for whatever one-time payment got them into the studio; well, really, really, sucks to be an artist in that genre.
The lesson of biology is that if you make your scripts complex enough; they'll start maintaining themselves. Upgrading, even. Exact behavior of upgrades not guaranteed.
Unfortunately, one of the disadvantages of deviating from strictly correct behavior as a CA is that it makes it harder for people trying to figure out who the threat is to answer that question; and 'all of the above' benefit from those bad practices.
If your approach to 'customer service' involves a willingness to forge certs for them; it may start with a few extra sales to admins trying to dodge deadlines; but criminals will have an obvious interest in someone willing to issue dodgy certs for a few extra sales. And if you already have a noise floor of private sector shady actors; that's attractive to governments looking to do something quietly and deniably.
As a matter of intent; I wouldn't be at all surprised if it started out innocently enough, doing a little favor for someone who really, really needed that backdated cert to keep his creaky infrastructure up; but this isn't the sort of business where innocent mistakes get to stay innocent for long; so ultimately it doesn't really matter that much. There job was to be trustworthy; they aren't. Game over.
Isn't an isolated network that you have exclusive control over pretty much an ideal case for using your own root?
CAs are a necessary evil when you expect to deal with 3rd parties, because they've managed to get themselves trusted by a variety of vendors and you haven't; but if it's all your stuff, you can set it to trust your root and call it a day.
The Cherry mechanicals certainly beat your basic rubber domes; and have become conveniently widely available; but they are a completely different type of keyswitch than used in either the model F or model M. Given the price, you'd really, really, have to care; but the differences aren't confined to a more industrial enclosure.
Ah, yes, the "Microsoft Consumer Experiences". That's what they actually call the "download and add random craplets to the start menu" feature in the group policy template you can use to turn it off(Enterprise or Education SKUs only; sorry "Professionals"...)
I'm not sure where to start with this one; so I'll go with the classics and mention the "library", a convenient institution that has provided both a professionally selected collection and access to a very broad range of material(sometimes only by request, if it's an obscure thing that needs to be inter-library loaned). You might have heard of them; they've only been around for longer than most contemporary nation states.
As for the "cry, cry, searching the web is hard and things aren't centralized!!!"; you would propose Netflix as a solution? The one that routinely loses stuff from its catalog because of rightsholder spats and the desire of competitors for exclusives? Netflix manages to both be non comprehensive and discourages you from stepping outside the app(particularly important for educational material, where you are more likely to be depending on the system because you don't necessarily know what reference material is most suitable: with entertainment it doesn't matter as much because either you find some something else that amuses you; or you know that something is missing and go elsewhere).
A decentralized; but relatively easy to search, cross-reference, open in multiple tabs, etc. system might not be quite as elegant as the hypothetical ideal universal resource brilliantly executed by a rightsholder so benevolent that they would't gouge you for a brilliantly executed universal resource library; but that ideal doesn't exist; and seems unlikely to; which leaves the more or less open, if eclectic, option more appealing than various incomplete closed systems; often also badly designed.
And, if your proposal is "But we should use magic standards to stitch all the content together at a high level!"; that's been tried for ages(DoD ADL efforts are early 90s, at latest) and while SCORM and friends are less fictional than the 'semantic web'; trying to make "learning management systems" play nicely with things their vendor didn't specifically design them to still really sucks.
Content-agnostic HTML and hyperlinks may be inelegant and dumb as rocks; but it has the virtue of actually working while the 'elegant' approaches are busy trying to solve millennia-old epistemological problems so they can wrap the results in XML. Don't go there; just don't.
In this particular debate; it's more of a difference between those who think that buying off the poor will be easier and cheaper; and those who think that fighting off the poor will be easier and cheaper.
Unless you grovelled quite carefully over every new batch of virus signatures and heuristics(not necessarily a good idea if it delays protection against viruses that could already be hitting your gullible users; and not necessarily an easy task, if the number of occasions when an AV vendor has accidentally broken the OS or some common program by misidentifying it as a virus is anything to go by); even a fully 'non-malicious' antivirus program could turn very unpleasant very fast with the wrong update.
Be a real pity if some parts of your PKCS 11 stuff generated some false positives and the 'sample submissions' happened to include key material, no?
It isn't just AV outfits. I don't know how much arm-twisting this originally may have involved; but Microsoft will let suitably qualified government customers look at the code. Given that the people who don't respect your copyrights have access to pirated versions anyway; and you don't really want "Security" to be an automatic winning argument against using your product, I imagine that it's not too hard a case to make.
What I wonder more about is how much this access actually helps those who have it. Antivirus products in particular, and reasonably complex software in general, receive vendor updates that can, and sometimes do, substantially alter their behavior quite frequently(and often in response to serious security holes, so you can't just adopt a blanket policy of sitting on all updates for 18 months); so if you want to stick to the carefully hand-reviewed stuff, you'll be so far out of date that random botnets and commercially motivated attackers will be nibbling on you; but if you want timely signature updates and security patches you essentially end up trusting the vendor to not slip something nasty into some urgent auto-update.
This case is particularly unimpressive; but I suspect that the sheriff isn't thinking hard enough about it. Mortality in the late teens to early 20s related to doing really stupid things to impress your peers isn't exactly something that was invented at the same time as smartphone selfies.
"Cars and alcohol", "pointless fights", and "things not to do in flooded quarries" are more common variants than "youtube stunts"; but unless the sheriff's social circle is really small, he probably doesn't even have to imagine; odds are pretty good that someone he went to school with, or was otherwise close enough to have heard about, died while taking really stupid risks for attention. It's not that uncommon.
This seems like a terrible idea even if books were a great deal more hardback than they actually are: even if the book resists penetration, it doesn't magically annihilate the kinetic energy involved; just spreads it over a somewhat larger area.
Taking ~2,000j to a small rectangular region of your chest(while offering better odds than taking the same amount of energy directly from the bullet) does not sound like a good time. You might just break rib or two; but there's lot of important soft tissue there: heart, lungs, major blood vessels.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly we should just impose harsh discipline on the affected workers for knowingly stealing hazardous nuclear materials from their job site.
Won't actually solve any problems; but should reduce the number of reports of problems.
There's an extra wrinkle: it's downright trivial to make your own new 'coin'(at least if it's a close clone of one of the existing ones; making more significant architectural changes would obviously be a bigger job). There are even handy web interfaces that will make them for you; just plug in your parameters and go.
However, creating a new variant doesn't affect the scarcity of the existing variant: there are more 'coins' in circulation overall; but 'coins' from one fork can always be distinguished from those of the other; so the scarcity of Fork X 'coins' remains the same; but now there are Fork Y 'coins' as well.
The really scarce resource is interest: as noted, having your own pet 'coin' and blockchain is extremely trivial; but also likely to be worthless because you can't pass it off as being the 'real thing'; and nobody else cares about it. This incident is somewhat notable not in that it's the creation of yet another cryptocurrency variant(which happens all the time); but that there was enough discontent with the existing arrangement that the fork has actually attracted some attention and isn't completely worthless.
I don't know if that is still a thing. UEFI Graphics Output Protocol has the knives out for VESA mode; though I don't know how many, if any, devices are now VESA-free; as opposed to supporting both.
Silly communist. "Personal responsibility" means paying whatever your betters say you owe. Malfeasance doesn't exist; and alleged 'mistakes' are fake news.
Actually, 'securitization' and resale(often multiple layers) of debt has been a very, very, popular trend; and at least in property mortgages, led to quite a few situations where nobody seemed to have any idea(much less be willing to tell the borrower) who was actually supposed to be getting paid; had a claim to the collateral in the event of a default, etc.
Making a loan and then keeping it on your books for the duration of its repayment period is increasingly quaint. That's one of the reasons why the time-saving "just make it up" method of bookkeeping became popular. Standards of documentation designed under the assumption that creditors would retain loans became cumbersome when they were chopping them up and reselling them; so they decided to adopt more convenient standards.
The fact that PowerVR-based Atoms have worthless driver support is Intel's fault: Microsoft's contribution to the debacle is creating a situation where upgrading the OS actually shortens the support window. If running Win8.1, these devices would get the pre "windows as a service" treatment; which in the case of 8.1 is mainstream support until 1/09/2018; extended support until 1/10/2023; if running Windows 10, a given major update gets only "at least 18 months"; after which you are potentially out of luck unless you can move to the next major update. And, since 'feature' and 'security' updates are now being aggregated; having a GPU with drivers that don't play nice with some aspect of WDDM means no security updates.
Intel's support for the PowerVR-based Atoms has always been shamefully bad; and they deserve full blame for that; but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's big push for Win10 upgrades...doesn't look so good...for hardware where it now(well after users made the choice, and without any way for them to know) means that Win10 devices will fall out of support faster than Win8.1 devices will.
It's also not a favorable anecdote for the 'Windows' glorious stable driver interface!' argument that always gets trotted out: It's not a huge surprise that an older part that always had shit support isn't getting shiny new drivers with WDDM 2.2 support; but Win10 1703 has apparently changed enough that those parts, which do have functioning drivers for earlier WDDM versions(probably 1.2 or 1.3; since they were introduced to support Win8; maybe 2.0 depending on how much polish they received for Win10) can't even continue to offer the features that they previously offered if you update to version 1703; while they did work in 1607.
That sort of stability an backward compatibility used to be something that Microsoft at least tried at and cared about; the change isn't a flattering one. Entirely in keeping with Microsoft's Apple-envy approach of late; but not a good thing.
Some people just make dumb mistakes. Others read the (admittedly pretty cool) descriptions of the mathematical properties of cryptocurrencies and foolishly assume that those properties somehow rub off on the decidedly less elegant infrastructure on which basically everything done with the cryptocurrencies depends.
I'm not sure what the exact breakdown is; but it's practically a business model for the 'exchanges': Get people to hand you the mathematically validated cryptographic stuff in exchange for IOUs denominated in whatever coin is trendy; then people are all surprised when those IOUs have no special properties whatsoever; and can be changed just as easily as anything else on a poorly secured web server.
Yes, in the sense that it's scarcer. "Not so much", in the sense that you've just told everyone that you can, and will, disappear chunks of their invisible internet money that you find suspicious.
When your value depends mostly on confidence, that's a risky move.
If there is an issue that keeps process termination and cleanup from being properly parallelized; I can understand why that might cause unexpectedly poor utilization of additional cores for computationally intensive tasks that also massacre lots of processes; but why would that cause the GUI to stop responding?
Unless moving the cursor also depends on terminating a bunch of processes; and hangs until that task is finished, wouldn't the inefficiency imposed on the build process be expected to keep the GUI more responsive; by preventing it from occupying as much CPU time as it otherwise would?
Am I just confused? Does keeping the desktop and cursor drawn actually involve lots of time sensitive process killing? Does this indeed not make sense?
The thing to remember is that most artists don't get paid that long(despite copyright terms indeed being ridiculous); because somebody has to care enough about their work to pay for it.
The rock stars get to coast on their back catalogs; but the people who can be replaced by anonymous filler without audience displeasure probably aren't them;
I suspect that your sentiment may have something to do with why they are so particularly displeased by the idea:
If Spotify is just doing something dubiously legal; Team RIAA can sue them into a smoking crater and call it a day; it'd hardly be the first time that has happened.
If there are genres where some adequately competent musicians banging together a work for hire are considered by listeners to be an acceptable substitute for "real" artists; and can be used for 95 years for whatever one-time payment got them into the studio; well, really, really, sucks to be an artist in that genre.
The lesson of biology is that if you make your scripts complex enough; they'll start maintaining themselves. Upgrading, even. Exact behavior of upgrades not guaranteed.
Unfortunately, one of the disadvantages of deviating from strictly correct behavior as a CA is that it makes it harder for people trying to figure out who the threat is to answer that question; and 'all of the above' benefit from those bad practices.
If your approach to 'customer service' involves a willingness to forge certs for them; it may start with a few extra sales to admins trying to dodge deadlines; but criminals will have an obvious interest in someone willing to issue dodgy certs for a few extra sales. And if you already have a noise floor of private sector shady actors; that's attractive to governments looking to do something quietly and deniably.
As a matter of intent; I wouldn't be at all surprised if it started out innocently enough, doing a little favor for someone who really, really needed that backdated cert to keep his creaky infrastructure up; but this isn't the sort of business where innocent mistakes get to stay innocent for long; so ultimately it doesn't really matter that much. There job was to be trustworthy; they aren't. Game over.
Isn't an isolated network that you have exclusive control over pretty much an ideal case for using your own root?
CAs are a necessary evil when you expect to deal with 3rd parties, because they've managed to get themselves trusted by a variety of vendors and you haven't; but if it's all your stuff, you can set it to trust your root and call it a day.
The Cherry mechanicals certainly beat your basic rubber domes; and have become conveniently widely available; but they are a completely different type of keyswitch than used in either the model F or model M. Given the price, you'd really, really, have to care; but the differences aren't confined to a more industrial enclosure.
Ah, yes, the "Microsoft Consumer Experiences". That's what they actually call the "download and add random craplets to the start menu" feature in the group policy template you can use to turn it off(Enterprise or Education SKUs only; sorry "Professionals"...)
I'm not sure where to start with this one; so I'll go with the classics and mention the "library", a convenient institution that has provided both a professionally selected collection and access to a very broad range of material(sometimes only by request, if it's an obscure thing that needs to be inter-library loaned). You might have heard of them; they've only been around for longer than most contemporary nation states.
As for the "cry, cry, searching the web is hard and things aren't centralized!!!"; you would propose Netflix as a solution? The one that routinely loses stuff from its catalog because of rightsholder spats and the desire of competitors for exclusives? Netflix manages to both be non comprehensive and discourages you from stepping outside the app(particularly important for educational material, where you are more likely to be depending on the system because you don't necessarily know what reference material is most suitable: with entertainment it doesn't matter as much because either you find some something else that amuses you; or you know that something is missing and go elsewhere).
A decentralized; but relatively easy to search, cross-reference, open in multiple tabs, etc. system might not be quite as elegant as the hypothetical ideal universal resource brilliantly executed by a rightsholder so benevolent that they would't gouge you for a brilliantly executed universal resource library; but that ideal doesn't exist; and seems unlikely to; which leaves the more or less open, if eclectic, option more appealing than various incomplete closed systems; often also badly designed.
And, if your proposal is "But we should use magic standards to stitch all the content together at a high level!"; that's been tried for ages(DoD ADL efforts are early 90s, at latest) and while SCORM and friends are less fictional than the 'semantic web'; trying to make "learning management systems" play nicely with things their vendor didn't specifically design them to still really sucks.
Content-agnostic HTML and hyperlinks may be inelegant and dumb as rocks; but it has the virtue of actually working while the 'elegant' approaches are busy trying to solve millennia-old epistemological problems so they can wrap the results in XML. Don't go there; just don't.
In this particular debate; it's more of a difference between those who think that buying off the poor will be easier and cheaper; and those who think that fighting off the poor will be easier and cheaper.
Unless you grovelled quite carefully over every new batch of virus signatures and heuristics(not necessarily a good idea if it delays protection against viruses that could already be hitting your gullible users; and not necessarily an easy task, if the number of occasions when an AV vendor has accidentally broken the OS or some common program by misidentifying it as a virus is anything to go by); even a fully 'non-malicious' antivirus program could turn very unpleasant very fast with the wrong update.
Be a real pity if some parts of your PKCS 11 stuff generated some false positives and the 'sample submissions' happened to include key material, no?
Indeed; and I would be deeply reluctant to fire a desert eagle by bracing it against my chest and hoping for the best.
It isn't just AV outfits. I don't know how much arm-twisting this originally may have involved; but Microsoft will let suitably qualified government customers look at the code. Given that the people who don't respect your copyrights have access to pirated versions anyway; and you don't really want "Security" to be an automatic winning argument against using your product, I imagine that it's not too hard a case to make.
What I wonder more about is how much this access actually helps those who have it. Antivirus products in particular, and reasonably complex software in general, receive vendor updates that can, and sometimes do, substantially alter their behavior quite frequently(and often in response to serious security holes, so you can't just adopt a blanket policy of sitting on all updates for 18 months); so if you want to stick to the carefully hand-reviewed stuff, you'll be so far out of date that random botnets and commercially motivated attackers will be nibbling on you; but if you want timely signature updates and security patches you essentially end up trusting the vendor to not slip something nasty into some urgent auto-update.
This case is particularly unimpressive; but I suspect that the sheriff isn't thinking hard enough about it. Mortality in the late teens to early 20s related to doing really stupid things to impress your peers isn't exactly something that was invented at the same time as smartphone selfies.
"Cars and alcohol", "pointless fights", and "things not to do in flooded quarries" are more common variants than "youtube stunts"; but unless the sheriff's social circle is really small, he probably doesn't even have to imagine; odds are pretty good that someone he went to school with, or was otherwise close enough to have heard about, died while taking really stupid risks for attention. It's not that uncommon.
This seems like a terrible idea even if books were a great deal more hardback than they actually are: even if the book resists penetration, it doesn't magically annihilate the kinetic energy involved; just spreads it over a somewhat larger area.
Taking ~2,000j to a small rectangular region of your chest(while offering better odds than taking the same amount of energy directly from the bullet) does not sound like a good time. You might just break rib or two; but there's lot of important soft tissue there: heart, lungs, major blood vessels.
Improvements are welcomed; though humans have the annoying tendency to fail under load long before justice is done with them.
The hell with prison. necklace the bastard on live TV. He deserves it; and it's a valuable message.