> Oh, and most of this shit (especially the wholesale user monitoring) isn't enabled on the corporate boxes. Businesses, after all, have a right to privacy. Because they are more human than human, now?
That would be because businesses pay for the corporate version. Your privacy is the price for this "free operating system".
Looks like we need a security wall of shame that lists the response to flaw disclosures of each organisation, so people can quickly determine which companies will fix a flaw upon receiving a report, and which companies are hostile and should not be contacted.
> This is further compounded by some websites sticking up a dialog box telling me to register or "Like" them on Facebook if I want to continue browsing their content.
No loss there. It's a safe bet that it's not content of any quality if users have to be coerced into announcing that they "like" it before they see it.
> That being said, a world where taking things like adderall to compete in the employment world is not only accepted but possibly even expected scares the shit out of me.
It sounds like your approach to security is to risk manage it, like the car companies in Fight Club. Doing "some security stuff" and then keeping quiet and crossing your fingers hoping that nobody takes an interest does not inspire confidence. If a recreational hacker can defeat your security on a whim just to show off, you don't stand a chance against actual criminals who will quietly break your security and then proceed to exploit you for everything they can and for as long as they can.
> Maybe you are secure in your components or your not, but don't go looking for people to try and break you.
Actually that's exactly what you do. Look up "bug bounty".
The open source software world will win in the long term through sustained application of the continual improvement process. There are millions of "us" and only thousands of "them". The most vulnerable in five years time will be closed systems.
1) Security. You're going to have to come up with something really fancy (read expensive) so keep the homeowners and any of their guests/kids from tampering with it. Also keep it a secret, $Xk of gear would be a good target for thieves. 2) Reliability. Even a halfway competent datacentre will have very high reliable power and networking. Some guy's house? I'd wager less so. 3) Like everyone else said, warm seasons.
So, if you need to host something that doesn't require any security and you're happy with poor uptime, it's could be an option...
Perhaps we won't see a 3000 km long hyperloop, but there's plenty of places where a shorter one would fit. I put it in the same league as Maglev, which also requires a specialised track.
You'd want to match the force used on the original stamp, else your 'decoy' numbers and letters will leave crystal deformation pattern that differs in intensity from the real digits. Probably easy if you're the manufacturer, but a touch harder if you're some guy with a hammer.
The only weakness is that it needs to be repeated on newer ssds as they hit the market. The results of this test are relevant for drives released back when the experiment started in 2013, less so for drives released now and even less so for future drives. As the manufacturers realise that the drives are lasting much longer than they are specified to, they'll decide they are overengineered and rework them to wear out quicker. Aside from the obvious cost cutting benefit, it also keeps the market segmented in various grades between "low end consumer ssds" and "high end enterprise ssds".
> For bug tracking and reporting issues my experience has been either I get no response or I don't have the capabilities to supply the developer with the information they need to track the bug down.
You don't need to find the bug.... you just need to make it reproducible. A reproducible bug report is essentially as good as finding the bug itself; once the dev can follow your steps to reproduce it, he'll find it in short order. If you're getting no response, it's either a dead project, or your report is not specific enough. There's no upper limit on the time investment needed to solve a "it crashed when I was using it", but "it crashed when I open this file" is readily fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
Or someone dropped an anchor on it [1]
http://www.datacenterdynamics....
That doesn't seem like a productive way to spend your evenings and weekends.
Second law of computer security. Don't use platforms you don't trust. Do you trust Windows 10?
> Oh, and most of this shit (especially the wholesale user monitoring) isn't enabled on the corporate boxes. Businesses, after all, have a right to privacy. Because they are more human than human, now?
That would be because businesses pay for the corporate version. Your privacy is the price for this "free operating system".
> malice
> noun
> the desire to harm someone; ill will.
No, not malice. The word you were looking for is "greed".
Looks like we need a security wall of shame that lists the response to flaw disclosures of each organisation, so people can quickly determine which companies will fix a flaw upon receiving a report, and which companies are hostile and should not be contacted.
Source?
> This is further compounded by some websites sticking up a dialog box telling me to register or "Like" them on Facebook if I want to continue browsing their content.
No loss there. It's a safe bet that it's not content of any quality if users have to be coerced into announcing that they "like" it before they see it.
> That being said, a world where taking things like adderall to compete in the employment world is not only accepted but possibly even expected scares the shit out of me.
Yet the near ubiquity of coffee doesn't both you?
What about to eyes? Either directly, or reflected off the copious shiny things we have around
.. how much damage is this going to do to us when someone definitely turns this around and aims it at the ground?
It sounds like your approach to security is to risk manage it, like the car companies in Fight Club. Doing "some security stuff" and then keeping quiet and crossing your fingers hoping that nobody takes an interest does not inspire confidence. If a recreational hacker can defeat your security on a whim just to show off, you don't stand a chance against actual criminals who will quietly break your security and then proceed to exploit you for everything they can and for as long as they can.
> Maybe you are secure in your components or your not, but don't go looking for people to try and break you.
Actually that's exactly what you do. Look up "bug bounty".
.... just send in another transforming robot to retrieve it.
Why does this keep coming up?
This problem is solved: http://www.dwheeler.com/trusti...
So I'm going to need a fancy server motherboard with dual gigabit ports to use it? or perhaps even one with a 10G port?
The open source software world will win in the long term through sustained application of the continual improvement process. There are millions of "us" and only thousands of "them". The most vulnerable in five years time will be closed systems.
1) Security. You're going to have to come up with something really fancy (read expensive) so keep the homeowners and any of their guests/kids from tampering with it. Also keep it a secret, $Xk of gear would be a good target for thieves.
2) Reliability. Even a halfway competent datacentre will have very high reliable power and networking. Some guy's house? I'd wager less so.
3) Like everyone else said, warm seasons.
So, if you need to host something that doesn't require any security and you're happy with poor uptime, it's could be an option...
Perhaps we won't see a 3000 km long hyperloop, but there's plenty of places where a shorter one would fit. I put it in the same league as Maglev, which also requires a specialised track.
You'd want to match the force used on the original stamp, else your 'decoy' numbers and letters will leave crystal deformation pattern that differs in intensity from the real digits. Probably easy if you're the manufacturer, but a touch harder if you're some guy with a hammer.
Google won't torture you by mistake. Well, as far as we know, anyhow.
The only weakness is that it needs to be repeated on newer ssds as they hit the market. The results of this test are relevant for drives released back when the experiment started in 2013, less so for drives released now and even less so for future drives. As the manufacturers realise that the drives are lasting much longer than they are specified to, they'll decide they are overengineered and rework them to wear out quicker. Aside from the obvious cost cutting benefit, it also keeps the market segmented in various grades between "low end consumer ssds" and "high end enterprise ssds".
> For bug tracking and reporting issues my experience has been either I get no response or I don't have the capabilities to supply the developer with the information they need to track the bug down.
You don't need to find the bug.... you just need to make it reproducible. A reproducible bug report is essentially as good as finding the bug itself; once the dev can follow your steps to reproduce it, he'll find it in short order. If you're getting no response, it's either a dead project, or your report is not specific enough. There's no upper limit on the time investment needed to solve a "it crashed when I was using it", but "it crashed when I open this file" is readily fixed.
So basically, youtube?
> "By orders of magnitude, when we find new vulnerabilities, we share them"
I wonder how many ways they've thought of to misclassify freshly discovered vulnerabilities as old.
So I assume all the deliberately introduced vulnerabilities are excluded from the tally because they technically "did not find them" ?
.. same as the old boss