That's the problem. If you want a list of the "top 10 Linux problems" you will ALWAYS find 10 Linux problems that are the worst.
And the same can be said of the "top 10 Windows problems" and the "top 10 Mac problems" and so forth. And any other "top 10 problems".
Making a list of "problems" is EASY.
Making a list of specific problems that are preventing people from using Linux in specific roles... that's difficult. Because most of the "problems" are NOT technological. They boil down to "Linux does not look/behave the way I am familiar with".
And if you take that approach then you'll see "top 10 things where Linux is not enough like Windows/Mac". And you will be right back where you started.
publisher may be making weak (rather than wrong) argument,...
No. It is wrong. Completely wrong. Google has nothing to do with other companies that are violating copyrights.
... but anyone defending almighty goog... is simply wrong.
And no one is defending Google. That is because Google is not involved as he claims they are.
Here's an example for you: If you license Amalgamated Alice to distribute your product... But then you find Bob's Basement Bargains is distributing a copy of your product... Alice is not responsible for Bob's actions.
If you have a problem with Bob then you take it up with Bob. Do not claim that Alice should do something about it.
The database includes names, addresses, birth dates, party affiliations, phone numbers and emails of voters in all 50 U.S. states and Washington, researcher Chris Vickery said in a phone interview.
So "spear phising" just got a LOT easier.
Via email: Happy Birthday (name)! Click here to see a personal birthday message from (politician).
So tech companies will have at least 2 product lines.
a. for everywhere EXCEPT China b. for no place BUT China
What will happen to this law once Chinese tech is not accepted anywhere except inside China?
And how many Chinese companies will be able to produce anything from category "a"? Remember, there is a LOT of tech that is manufactured in China but still belongs to non-Chinese corporations.
Anyway, the answer is always: Stop as fast as you can in your own lane. Do not weave.
I'd also have it sound the horn and flash the lights.
Code that response into law and indemnify the maker/driver.
And this is, IMO, exactly what will happen.
Remember, these vehicles have complete records of everything that is happening around them at all times. Everything that can be recorded, that is. So the insurance companies will have exact records of how the robot was 100% within the law AND had taken every REASONABLE response to mitigate the collision.
The robots do not have to be 100% at determining whether your life is worth more/less than someone else's. They just have to be 100% at showing that they were following the law and attempting to avoid the collision.
The legal system and the insurance companies will sort out the rest. And the insurance companies will pay to have the legal system write the new laws to reflect that.
Would you buy a car that came equipped with an explosive that would, under certain circumstances, explode and kill the driver?
This whole "trolley problem" is bullshit.
From TFA, Doctrow uses the "trolley problem" to get to a different point:
Forget trolleys: the destiny of self-driving cars will turn on labour relationships, surveillance capabilities, and the distribution of capital wealth.
Nice switch there but the basis is still bullshit. No one will buy a machine that has code in it specifically designed to kill them.
And the main reason for that is that the programmers would have to be 100% certain of EVERY SINGLE SITUATION and implement that code with 100% reliability. And that is impossible.
The moment such a machine mistakes a toy doll for a child and INTENTIONALLY injures/kills the occupant(s) is the moment that company will be sued out of existence.
That's one of the reasons why I'm having trouble believing TFA. There isn't much skill needed to crack most organizations I've seen.
Anyway, from TFA: 1. Guy working on thing for A notices that A has been cracked. ok 2. Guy tracks crack back to open FTP servers. ok 3. Guy finds lots of other stuff on open FTP servers. ok 4. Guy does magic to find next time malware attacks someone. um, not ok
Before Wallace could dive into the files, his first priority was to track where the hackers would strike next - and try to stop them.
He started staying up nights, often jittery on Red Bull, to reverse-engineer malware. He waited to get pinged that the intruders were at it again.
Months later, Wallace got the alert: From Internet Protocol addresses in Tehran, the hackers had deployed TinyZbot, a Trojan horse-style of software that the attackers used to gain backdoor access to their targets, log their keystrokes and take screen shots of their information. The hacking group, he would find, included members in the Netherlands, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
So Iranian "hackers" in Canada deploy malware via Tehran servers?
And unless he uploaded a hacked version of their malware to those cracked FTP servers... how did he know?
Maybe he moved one of his cracked machines to a "honey-net"?
But then, why would any competent crackers deploy from servers in Iran? Particularly if they live in Canada and elsewhere?
This reads more like fear-mongering. IRAN IS ATTACKING US! BE AFRAID! EVIL IRANIANS! (and some canadians).
When Senator Feinstein was a teenager, I'd bet a lot money that she went for a walk alone with her friends sometimes. You go to the park, you walk in the woods or the meadow (in more rural areas), or whatever.
Not any more. Now, the cops can be called if some IDIOT sees your kids playing by themselves. Now you drive your kids everywhere to meet other kids in controlled environments.
And that is considered NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.
See also Feinstein's defense of government spying on citizens. But her rage when one department spies on another department.
It is true... They will not want to kill the goose as long as it keeps laying golden eggs.
The criminals don't. But phrasing that as "benefitting" the victims is... beyond stupid.
Like being shaken down for "protection" money. But the mob is doing such a good job that they can offer you a 50% off deal. It might be less painful, but it is not a "benefit" in any way.
The success of the ransomware ends up benefitting victims: because so many people pay, the malware authors are less inclined to wring excess profit out of any single victim, keeping ransoms low.
Gotta love the "logic" that went into that statement.
Remember kids, paying the ransom is a lot cheaper than investing in security... as long as everyone else is also paying the Danegeld.
The stated goal of ISIS is a global caliphate governed by Sharia law implemented by the sword.
So? Who cares?
What's the worst that they can do to us? Or to China? Or to Russia? They're a third-string wannabe that is getting all the media hype because FEAR SELLS.
And it is easy for politicians to look tough by calling for more military action against them.
We've had attacks in Paris and in San Bernadino where unencrypted communications were used and the attacks were not disrupted.
That is the key issue.
Trying to connect-the-dots is impossible. Because that is the wrong analogy. In reality it is about constructing thousands of "dots" out of the regular actions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and then layering them on top of each other.
Soon you end up with hundreds of Billions of "dots" and not enough manpower to check even 0.0001% of the false positives. So the "bad guys" will always get through.
This foe, while not insignificant, is small enough that using their communications to disrupt their acts should be very effective, but it's not proving effective.
I think that it is insignificant. At least in the USofA.
If you are in the USofA and you die tomorrow, it will probably be from your diet. If someone kills you it will probably be someone you know.
Death by terrorism falls bellow death by ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.
And those "aliens" always have the weirdest MANDATORY rituals.
Like when the Earthican science officer has to travel home so he can celebrate Chr'istm;as with his family or else he will experience a drop in honour and require an increased h;oul'y pAy''ra'te for those days.
It was bad enough when he had us all sitting around the rec deck cutting Chr'istm;as kh'ah'rdd=s out of pAy''pur so we could exchange them with each other for kh'ah'rdd=s that we had just cut out.
I do not really believe that self driving cars will significantly reduce my transportation time.
I do.
But I expect them to reduce the number of traffic accident. In a traffic jam, drivers can frustrated and bump in each other. I highly doubt self driving car would do that.
And that is why I believe that they will improve the commute time. Fewer accidents to avoid. Fewer accidents that the idiots have to slow down and look at. And if the idiots really have to look at the remaining accidents, the car can still do the driving.
I'd like to see the people with the most money who also claim that there is a "shortage" to offer to pay the tuition for X number of STEM classes so that students could take them for FREE.
Even if they only start with the 100 level math courses.
Would more people end up taking Calc 3? Maybe. Maybe not. If they do, good. If they do not, then the cost won't be a problem.
Switch the focus from getting-money-from-students to getting-more-STEM-students.
It is sad and sickening to see so called liberals...
Also correct.
BUT... it does not matter. In the end it is up to the business whether it will run X or not.
By way of example: if I paid you $10 to put a sign on your lawn saying X would it be wrong for you to refuse to put a sign saying Y on your lawn for $10?
And that's where we are at with this. The theatres refuse all religious / political ads. That way they do not endorse X or Y. Nor can they be seen as supporting Y.
How did these clowns get everyone acting like trained fucking monkeys?
Because, for the most part, they are.
I don't think that it is about the "stuff" in general. It's about the social status of being someone who has the "stuff". The more in-demand the stuff is this season, the more social status afforded to acquiring it. Even if that status is only temporary.
Vendors want to see a repeat of customers fighting for their products. Whether it be an Elmo doll or a Cabbage Patch Kid or whatever. Be cool. Be the person with the stuff. Everyone who did not get the stuff will be so envious.
To an employee, you are a paycheck / insurance / vacation-time / etc. If they fuck up they have to go through the interview process to replace those items. And it is in their best interest to do the job correctly so they don't have to deal with the problems or the hassle of interviewing.
To a contractor, you are billable hours. If they fuck up they have to find replacement billable hours. That's it. They don't care whether it works right because they can charge to fix it. Again. And again. If they find a customer who pays better, you'll be on your own. Unless you want to cough up more money.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the problem. If you want a list of the "top 10 Linux problems" you will ALWAYS find 10 Linux problems that are the worst.
And the same can be said of the "top 10 Windows problems" and the "top 10 Mac problems" and so forth. And any other "top 10 problems".
Making a list of "problems" is EASY.
Making a list of specific problems that are preventing people from using Linux in specific roles ... that's difficult. Because most of the "problems" are NOT technological. They boil down to "Linux does not look/behave the way I am familiar with".
And if you take that approach then you'll see "top 10 things where Linux is not enough like Windows/Mac". And you will be right back where you started.
No. It is wrong. Completely wrong. Google has nothing to do with other companies that are violating copyrights.
And no one is defending Google. That is because Google is not involved as he claims they are.
Here's an example for you: ... ...
If you license Amalgamated Alice to distribute your product
But then you find Bob's Basement Bargains is distributing a copy of your product
Alice is not responsible for Bob's actions.
If you have a problem with Bob then you take it up with Bob. Do not claim that Alice should do something about it.
There's a difference. From TFA:
So "spear phising" just got a LOT easier.
Via email: Happy Birthday (name)! Click here to see a personal birthday message from (politician).
So tech companies will have at least 2 product lines.
a. for everywhere EXCEPT China
b. for no place BUT China
What will happen to this law once Chinese tech is not accepted anywhere except inside China?
And how many Chinese companies will be able to produce anything from category "a"? Remember, there is a LOT of tech that is manufactured in China but still belongs to non-Chinese corporations.
I'd also have it sound the horn and flash the lights.
And this is, IMO, exactly what will happen.
Remember, these vehicles have complete records of everything that is happening around them at all times. Everything that can be recorded, that is. So the insurance companies will have exact records of how the robot was 100% within the law AND had taken every REASONABLE response to mitigate the collision.
The robots do not have to be 100% at determining whether your life is worth more/less than someone else's. They just have to be 100% at showing that they were following the law and attempting to avoid the collision.
The legal system and the insurance companies will sort out the rest. And the insurance companies will pay to have the legal system write the new laws to reflect that.
Would you buy a car that came equipped with an explosive that would, under certain circumstances, explode and kill the driver?
This whole "trolley problem" is bullshit.
From TFA, Doctrow uses the "trolley problem" to get to a different point:
Nice switch there but the basis is still bullshit. No one will buy a machine that has code in it specifically designed to kill them.
And the main reason for that is that the programmers would have to be 100% certain of EVERY SINGLE SITUATION and implement that code with 100% reliability. And that is impossible.
The moment such a machine mistakes a toy doll for a child and INTENTIONALLY injures/kills the occupant(s) is the moment that company will be sued out of existence.
That's one of the reasons why I'm having trouble believing TFA. There isn't much skill needed to crack most organizations I've seen.
Anyway, from TFA:
1. Guy working on thing for A notices that A has been cracked. ok
2. Guy tracks crack back to open FTP servers. ok
3. Guy finds lots of other stuff on open FTP servers. ok
4. Guy does magic to find next time malware attacks someone. um, not ok
So Iranian "hackers" in Canada deploy malware via Tehran servers?
And unless he uploaded a hacked version of their malware to those cracked FTP servers ... how did he know?
Maybe he moved one of his cracked machines to a "honey-net"?
But then, why would any competent crackers deploy from servers in Iran? Particularly if they live in Canada and elsewhere?
This reads more like fear-mongering. IRAN IS ATTACKING US! BE AFRAID! EVIL IRANIANS! (and some canadians).
If those companies want a port open on the router, can you lock the port to only the IP addresses that that company would be using?
That should be fairly standard on most of the firewall/routers available today.
Not any more. Now, the cops can be called if some IDIOT sees your kids playing by themselves. Now you drive your kids everywhere to meet other kids in controlled environments.
And that is considered NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.
See also Feinstein's defense of government spying on citizens. But her rage when one department spies on another department.
The criminals don't. But phrasing that as "benefitting" the victims is ... beyond stupid.
Like being shaken down for "protection" money. But the mob is doing such a good job that they can offer you a 50% off deal. It might be less painful, but it is not a "benefit" in any way.
Gotta love the "logic" that went into that statement.
Remember kids, paying the ransom is a lot cheaper than investing in security ... as long as everyone else is also paying the Danegeld.
So? Who cares?
What's the worst that they can do to us? Or to China? Or to Russia? They're a third-string wannabe that is getting all the media hype because FEAR SELLS.
And it is easy for politicians to look tough by calling for more military action against them.
That is the key issue.
Trying to connect-the-dots is impossible. Because that is the wrong analogy. In reality it is about constructing thousands of "dots" out of the regular actions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and then layering them on top of each other.
Soon you end up with hundreds of Billions of "dots" and not enough manpower to check even 0.0001% of the false positives. So the "bad guys" will always get through.
I think that it is insignificant. At least in the USofA.
If you are in the USofA and you die tomorrow, it will probably be from your diet. If someone kills you it will probably be someone you know.
Death by terrorism falls bellow death by ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.
Yeah, it's a different type of Earthican sugardrink. You probably never heard of it. I get it imported from a small distributor.
- Klingon Hipster
They call their home planet "Earth".
It means "dirt" in their language.
And those "aliens" always have the weirdest MANDATORY rituals.
Like when the Earthican science officer has to travel home so he can celebrate Chr'istm;as with his family or else he will experience a drop in honour and require an increased h;oul'y pAy''ra'te for those days.
It was bad enough when he had us all sitting around the rec deck cutting Chr'istm;as kh'ah'rdd=s out of pAy''pur so we could exchange them with each other for kh'ah'rdd=s that we had just cut out.
Earthican ale. Yeah it sounds cute but Earth does not produce just one type of ale.
Earthican coffee. See Earthican ale.
I do.
And that is why I believe that they will improve the commute time. Fewer accidents to avoid. Fewer accidents that the idiots have to slow down and look at. And if the idiots really have to look at the remaining accidents, the car can still do the driving.
I'd like to see the people with the most money who also claim that there is a "shortage" to offer to pay the tuition for X number of STEM classes so that students could take them for FREE.
Even if they only start with the 100 level math courses.
Would more people end up taking Calc 3? Maybe. Maybe not. If they do, good. If they do not, then the cost won't be a problem.
Switch the focus from getting-money-from-students to getting-more-STEM-students.
I don't think she sufficiently covered the HOW which is the problem.
They don't fund a charter school and see how the students there do.
They fund political campaigns to move money FROM the existing system TO their system.
When their system does not support their projections, they leave it. BUT THEY DO NOT PAY TO HAVE THE LAW REVERSED.
So the end result is a worse public school system.
In my experience that is because they've already made up their minds.
Ask her, should something go wrong, whether she'd blame the school's security or herself for releasing the info in the first place.
Correct.
Also correct.
BUT ... it does not matter. In the end it is up to the business whether it will run X or not.
By way of example: if I paid you $10 to put a sign on your lawn saying X would it be wrong for you to refuse to put a sign saying Y on your lawn for $10?
And that's where we are at with this. The theatres refuse all religious / political ads. That way they do not endorse X or Y. Nor can they be seen as supporting Y.
Because, for the most part, they are.
I don't think that it is about the "stuff" in general. It's about the social status of being someone who has the "stuff". The more in-demand the stuff is this season, the more social status afforded to acquiring it. Even if that status is only temporary.
Vendors want to see a repeat of customers fighting for their products. Whether it be an Elmo doll or a Cabbage Patch Kid or whatever. Be cool. Be the person with the stuff. Everyone who did not get the stuff will be so envious.
I have to explain that to people all the time.
To an employee, you are a paycheck / insurance / vacation-time / etc. If they fuck up they have to go through the interview process to replace those items. And it is in their best interest to do the job correctly so they don't have to deal with the problems or the hassle of interviewing.
To a contractor, you are billable hours. If they fuck up they have to find replacement billable hours. That's it. They don't care whether it works right because they can charge to fix it. Again. And again. If they find a customer who pays better, you'll be on your own. Unless you want to cough up more money.
https://edell.tlsfun.de/
I don't think it is "accused" any more. It's pretty much proven.