Will they have to actually demonstrate a material loss resulting from a security breach associated with the flaw, including some kind of material proof that the flaw was actually the cause of the breach?
I'm kind of guessing time spent running around and patching probably isn't something they can sue for, otherwise MS would have been out of business ages ago on this item.
And what do they actually hope to get out of it? New CPUs not compatible with their existing motherboards? A cash payment based on the pro-rated cost of the microprocessor itself based on remaining life cycle?
I can see the obvious desire to rake Intel over the coals and perhaps they deserve some of it, I just don't get how you can link any specific loss to this chip flaw, or if you can, it's extremely hard to prove.
I'm also curious if there's not some general defense for Intel along the lines of "running a computing infrastructure involves dealing with bugs and flaws in hardware and software, problems will arise".
There's something about the nature of life in America that's causing people to go off the rails with anger and frustration. I don't know what it is, economics, politics, smartphone/internet-focused social relationships, and/or the rotten synergy of all that and other things.
My most recent thoughts (just before I heard about this shooting in fact) was how little tolerance modern life has for even minor issues -- make a mistake at any stage in your life and you run the risk of personal and financial ruin, or if you're young enough and don't have much yet to lose, you just get eliminated from any chance at improving your life and get slotted into a perpetual second rate life of low-wage employment at best. It's not hard to see how this kind of zero-sum, no-second-chances kind of structure makes people go TILT.
I think the role of institutions in this is important. I think institutions are increasingly authoritarian (it seems like every government-based institution these days has its own armed police force, from school systems to transit systems to many Federal agencies), increasingly lacking in transparency and accountability, prone to issuing their own rules and regulations which lack any kind of democratic feedback and are enforced by kangaroo court âoejudicialâ systems lacking most every component considered vital for fair due process.
I think this alone might account for a lot of these situations. People feel trapped in Kafkaesque institutions, and its not just government.
It would almost be comforting to have some kind of grand conspiracy explain it, instead I fear there is no conspiracy "in control" and that it's actually some kind of emergent phenomenon of modern life. There may be actual conspiracies or forces in control of elements that lead to the emergent phenomenon but they are more basic (making the rich richer, etc) and people going off the rails is just a higher order byproduct, not an intended outcome.
I'm kind of surprised Musk didn't grandstand a bit and offer a large prize for reclaiming the Tesla intact, like $100 million or something?
It would obviously cost more than that with today's tech to actually pull it off, but it would be kind of amusing if in 20 years or something someone was actually able to cobble together a robotic mission to grab it and bring it back AND turn a profit on the whole thing.
I've worked with some companies associated with the power generation industry and already heard one story about 100% of hard drives being swapped out to eliminate Kaspersky in one organization.
Isn't that the lesson of Snapchat? Kids already avoid Facebook because mom and dad and grandma and grandpa are all over it (and ranting about political shit they don't care about).
Instead of querying some local database or black box API, a public ledger is shared and can be queried by anyone.
Isn't that kind of a problem? I think there's some security aspect to knowing who has access to what.
I suppose this is where Microsoft hoarding the information comes in, preventing it from actually being "public query" data and requiring a bunch of subscriptions to MS data services.
Regardless, this mostly just feels like another spin on locking in the authentication/signin market. Which is goofy because Microsoft will already wind up with a big chunk of the auth market anyway with AD/Azure.
I think at this point application vendors could solve a multitude of problems by providing statically linked applications. Issues like memory and disk space aren't as big of an impact as they once were.
But I think the reason we won't see a renaissance in statically linked applications is that vendors LIKE the fact that installers get run as privileged users because it lets them snoop the system and install telemetry they couldn't do with a static executable.
To be sure, there are good arguments against statically linked executables -- it's not a one-size, fits-all solution, but given the popularity and availability of so many portable versions of free apps, I think there's more demand for them.
I think companies hate that because it inflates their compensation costs -- if you have 100 employees with an average of 2 days unused sick time, now you have 200 days of extra wages to pay, probably close to a mid-level annual FTE paycheck, plus all the accounting headaches.
I know they also hate the accounting costs of carried vacation which is why use it or lose it is quite often the policy, but it also seems to solve so many problems with sick/vacation day policies and the unexpected outcomes their weird incentives have.
I thought the switch from split sick/vacation to pooled PTO was about the opposite incentive structure -- let people who don't get sick have "extra" vacation time.
The last place I worked switched from sick & vacation to all PTO and while the cumulative number of days went down, (15 vacation + 6 sick to 19 PTO) you could potentially have more vacation time.
The purported rationale was to prevent "abuse" of sick time by making it legitimately usable and give it to employees as vacation time anyway. I'm not sure they were data driven enough to see if most sick days got burned in December when they expired or whether they got used throughout the year. I think they *hoped* it would just end some amount of unscheduled absenteeism by discouraging people from taking unplanned days off, since they weren't "free".
I think the unplanned side effect, though, was a crush of people burning PTO time in December as they had saved some of it.
In my experience, both your wooden and steel hulls will need a trip into the yard every couple of years to have bottom paint updated and every so many years they need the whole mess sanded down to the substrate and then a new epoxy barrier coat(s) applied. This amount can vary depending on marine conditions and whether or not the hull is serviced by a diver periodically to clean off marine growth. I know people who get buy 3-4 years on bottom paint with regular dive service.
Both have totally tanked in the last 5 years. There are examples, but they seem tepid. The technology industry seems very focused on cornering markets, eliminating competition and then diminishing choice and raising prices. At best its minor innovation with maximum price extraction.
Add in repairability. It's too often sacrificed, and often for superficial reasons related to style or appearance. I willing to live with modular repairability (ie, if the fridge compressor goes you replace it with another motor/compressor combo and can't just replace the motor) because I get the economies of scale aspects and too often we don't even get modular repairability anymore.
Worse, designed in obsolescence is often a part of it. They don't WANT you to fix it, they want you to buy a whole new one which may not even have the specific features you want.
Good, I hope they do invest a bunch of money in a streaming service and I hope it fails miserably and they lose a bunch of money. And a few others do this as well.
Then I hope that all the back catalog content own^H^H^Hhoarders realize they're not actually sitting on a perpetual stream of gold, and that, in fact, their catalog is worth far less than think it is and the smart play is merely to license it out to anyone and everyone who might have some interest in showing it under the guise that more access equals more exposure and more interest and they might make some money off of it.
Right now it feels like back catalog content is being withheld for one of two annoying reasons. Either like Viacom or others, the owners think that they have a gold mine of streaming potential. Or, they're new content creators who think that hiding back catalog content will help them shovel the next shitty super hero franchise down everyone's throats because they've managed to limit choice and make people not understand how older content was often so much better.
As far as I can tell, the playback UI is missing obvious features like X second skip forward/back, slow motion, etc, and isn't at all touch screen friendly. I don't need much that is touch screen friendly, but a video player would be one place where it'd be nice.
It's kind of disappointing they didn't include enough battery/solar to at least send back periodic imagery of some kind, but I suppose that's kind of a rabbit hole and before you know it it's not just a GoPro, battery and panels with a satellite dish, it's an entire deep space probe.
From what I've been able to tell, the payload (Musk's roadster and the dummy in the space suit) are in some giant elliptical orbit around the sun with an orbital diameter as far out as Mars.
Is this right? Also, is the payload configured to have long-term telemetry like a probe, or is it just dead weight in a perpetual orbit?
I think there are strong reasons to not go public, but the big advantage to going public is that it allows for an external means of enrichment for executives via stock grants which doesn't tap into actual company revenue. Without stock grants, your company has to pay its executives solely through revenues.
I've always found the notion that equity companies raise money via stock to be kind of funny, because for the most part the actual business doesn't get any working capital except through initial stock offerings. Once the stock is sold, the money made from stock sales is really money made by the individuals holding the stock, not the business itself.
I've always been curious if there's a financial model where companies don't sell equity shares but instead just sell bonds which directly contributed to capitalization.
Based on the InfoGraphics(tm) in TFA, it looks like this is in a pretty well known geographic zone near other ruins/archaeological sites. The larger structures and scope may be new to archaeologists, but it sounds like the general area's likely archaeological value wasn't unknown.
It's not like they found a giant city in an area otherwise considered lacking anything.
In my opinion, the "complexity" of Exchange management for basic installs (single server, no DAG, under 500 users) is greatly overstated. It's gotten somewhat more bothersome to manage with the decline in quality since 2013, frequent CUs and the degrading of the GUI by switching to web only. But overall, it doesn't require a ton of management involvement. Maybe 2-4 hours a week of monitoring at best.
The problem with storage costs, etc, is that storage is relatively cheap and with virtualization there's almost always some marginal capacity available. Even in clients who have migrated to O365, there's still an on-premise server and storage environment, so adding Exchange doesn't really add that much to the larger infrastructure cost. It's mostly licensing.
I don't buy the "beating the retail price on all the stuff they include". O365 is like cable TV, people want it for Exchange and few get deep into the rest of besides maybe Skype for Business. So you're paying for functionality you may not use, like paying for ESPN and getting 4 reality TV channels you won't watch.
Only the largest enterprises have "full time Exchange admins" -- there's just not enough to do for a midsize deployment to pay one person to manage it. I haven't met a full time "email administrator" in nearly 20 years.
I have read that 2016 is not the last on-premise version. The next on premise version is in progress and MS has said they have no plans (now, anyway) to eliminate on premise.
I think O365 is too expensive for large clients (at a fairly low scale you could start throwing away hardware and software annually running on premise and still be cheaper) and there are too many data security and compliance requirements that would make companies refuse to go to O365.
AFAIK, it is for finding casual sex partners. I don't know that it's inherently anti-social, if anything, it's at least matching men and women with a shared intent of sexual involvement and potentially reduces some of the chances for sexual harassment which happens when one party wants sex but uses poor cues or inappropriate settings to seek it.
It doesn't surprise me that they would charge older people more. My expectation is that older men prefer younger women, have less access to younger women in their real lives, and would thus be inclined to overwhelm a service like Tinder. Tinder lives and dies by its ability to attract young women to the platform, and these young women are probably generally interested in partners in their peer group, not 40-something men.
If Tinder is flooded with older men, it will lose appeal to younger women and probably fail as a platform as women leave it due to too few desired partner matches. So it makes sense that Tinder wants to charge older people more for access. This will reduce the number of men on their platform and compensate them somewhat for whatever marginal loss in female users it causes.
I'm not sure any of this is unfair to older users. In real life, age discrimination against sexual partners happens. A 45 year old man simply is less desirable to 25 year old women.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop making sense. Just climb onto the pro-AMD/anti-Intel bandwagon and brigade against the man!
We were promised perfection by Intel, and by God we will scream until we get it.
Will they have to actually demonstrate a material loss resulting from a security breach associated with the flaw, including some kind of material proof that the flaw was actually the cause of the breach?
I'm kind of guessing time spent running around and patching probably isn't something they can sue for, otherwise MS would have been out of business ages ago on this item.
And what do they actually hope to get out of it? New CPUs not compatible with their existing motherboards? A cash payment based on the pro-rated cost of the microprocessor itself based on remaining life cycle?
I can see the obvious desire to rake Intel over the coals and perhaps they deserve some of it, I just don't get how you can link any specific loss to this chip flaw, or if you can, it's extremely hard to prove.
I'm also curious if there's not some general defense for Intel along the lines of "running a computing infrastructure involves dealing with bugs and flaws in hardware and software, problems will arise".
There's something about the nature of life in America that's causing people to go off the rails with anger and frustration. I don't know what it is, economics, politics, smartphone/internet-focused social relationships, and/or the rotten synergy of all that and other things.
My most recent thoughts (just before I heard about this shooting in fact) was how little tolerance modern life has for even minor issues -- make a mistake at any stage in your life and you run the risk of personal and financial ruin, or if you're young enough and don't have much yet to lose, you just get eliminated from any chance at improving your life and get slotted into a perpetual second rate life of low-wage employment at best. It's not hard to see how this kind of zero-sum, no-second-chances kind of structure makes people go TILT.
I think the role of institutions in this is important. I think institutions are increasingly authoritarian (it seems like every government-based institution these days has its own armed police force, from school systems to transit systems to many Federal agencies), increasingly lacking in transparency and accountability, prone to issuing their own rules and regulations which lack any kind of democratic feedback and are enforced by kangaroo court âoejudicialâ systems lacking most every component considered vital for fair due process.
I think this alone might account for a lot of these situations. People feel trapped in Kafkaesque institutions, and its not just government.
It would almost be comforting to have some kind of grand conspiracy explain it, instead I fear there is no conspiracy "in control" and that it's actually some kind of emergent phenomenon of modern life. There may be actual conspiracies or forces in control of elements that lead to the emergent phenomenon but they are more basic (making the rich richer, etc) and people going off the rails is just a higher order byproduct, not an intended outcome.
I'm kind of surprised Musk didn't grandstand a bit and offer a large prize for reclaiming the Tesla intact, like $100 million or something?
It would obviously cost more than that with today's tech to actually pull it off, but it would be kind of amusing if in 20 years or something someone was actually able to cobble together a robotic mission to grab it and bring it back AND turn a profit on the whole thing.
I didn't say it was an improvement per se, but the word supposedly has been coming from DHS to rip out Kaspersky.
I've worked with some companies associated with the power generation industry and already heard one story about 100% of hard drives being swapped out to eliminate Kaspersky in one organization.
Speculating seems too legitimate.
This is like a self-aware group Ponzi scheme where everyone thinks they're early enough in the Ponzi to be one of the people who gets paid off.
Isn't that the lesson of Snapchat? Kids already avoid Facebook because mom and dad and grandma and grandpa are all over it (and ranting about political shit they don't care about).
Instead of querying some local database or black box API, a public ledger is shared and can be queried by anyone.
Isn't that kind of a problem? I think there's some security aspect to knowing who has access to what.
I suppose this is where Microsoft hoarding the information comes in, preventing it from actually being "public query" data and requiring a bunch of subscriptions to MS data services.
Regardless, this mostly just feels like another spin on locking in the authentication/signin market. Which is goofy because Microsoft will already wind up with a big chunk of the auth market anyway with AD/Azure.
I think at this point application vendors could solve a multitude of problems by providing statically linked applications. Issues like memory and disk space aren't as big of an impact as they once were.
But I think the reason we won't see a renaissance in statically linked applications is that vendors LIKE the fact that installers get run as privileged users because it lets them snoop the system and install telemetry they couldn't do with a static executable.
To be sure, there are good arguments against statically linked executables -- it's not a one-size, fits-all solution, but given the popularity and availability of so many portable versions of free apps, I think there's more demand for them.
I think companies hate that because it inflates their compensation costs -- if you have 100 employees with an average of 2 days unused sick time, now you have 200 days of extra wages to pay, probably close to a mid-level annual FTE paycheck, plus all the accounting headaches.
I know they also hate the accounting costs of carried vacation which is why use it or lose it is quite often the policy, but it also seems to solve so many problems with sick/vacation day policies and the unexpected outcomes their weird incentives have.
I thought the switch from split sick/vacation to pooled PTO was about the opposite incentive structure -- let people who don't get sick have "extra" vacation time.
The last place I worked switched from sick & vacation to all PTO and while the cumulative number of days went down, (15 vacation + 6 sick to 19 PTO) you could potentially have more vacation time.
The purported rationale was to prevent "abuse" of sick time by making it legitimately usable and give it to employees as vacation time anyway. I'm not sure they were data driven enough to see if most sick days got burned in December when they expired or whether they got used throughout the year. I think they *hoped* it would just end some amount of unscheduled absenteeism by discouraging people from taking unplanned days off, since they weren't "free".
I think the unplanned side effect, though, was a crush of people burning PTO time in December as they had saved some of it.
In my experience, both your wooden and steel hulls will need a trip into the yard every couple of years to have bottom paint updated and every so many years they need the whole mess sanded down to the substrate and then a new epoxy barrier coat(s) applied. This amount can vary depending on marine conditions and whether or not the hull is serviced by a diver periodically to clean off marine growth. I know people who get buy 3-4 years on bottom paint with regular dive service.
Both have totally tanked in the last 5 years. There are examples, but they seem tepid. The technology industry seems very focused on cornering markets, eliminating competition and then diminishing choice and raising prices. At best its minor innovation with maximum price extraction.
Add in repairability. It's too often sacrificed, and often for superficial reasons related to style or appearance. I willing to live with modular repairability (ie, if the fridge compressor goes you replace it with another motor/compressor combo and can't just replace the motor) because I get the economies of scale aspects and too often we don't even get modular repairability anymore.
Worse, designed in obsolescence is often a part of it. They don't WANT you to fix it, they want you to buy a whole new one which may not even have the specific features you want.
Good, I hope they do invest a bunch of money in a streaming service and I hope it fails miserably and they lose a bunch of money. And a few others do this as well.
Then I hope that all the back catalog content own^H^H^Hhoarders realize they're not actually sitting on a perpetual stream of gold, and that, in fact, their catalog is worth far less than think it is and the smart play is merely to license it out to anyone and everyone who might have some interest in showing it under the guise that more access equals more exposure and more interest and they might make some money off of it.
Right now it feels like back catalog content is being withheld for one of two annoying reasons. Either like Viacom or others, the owners think that they have a gold mine of streaming potential. Or, they're new content creators who think that hiding back catalog content will help them shovel the next shitty super hero franchise down everyone's throats because they've managed to limit choice and make people not understand how older content was often so much better.
As far as I can tell, the playback UI is missing obvious features like X second skip forward/back, slow motion, etc, and isn't at all touch screen friendly. I don't need much that is touch screen friendly, but a video player would be one place where it'd be nice.
It's kind of disappointing they didn't include enough battery/solar to at least send back periodic imagery of some kind, but I suppose that's kind of a rabbit hole and before you know it it's not just a GoPro, battery and panels with a satellite dish, it's an entire deep space probe.
From what I've been able to tell, the payload (Musk's roadster and the dummy in the space suit) are in some giant elliptical orbit around the sun with an orbital diameter as far out as Mars.
Is this right? Also, is the payload configured to have long-term telemetry like a probe, or is it just dead weight in a perpetual orbit?
I think there are strong reasons to not go public, but the big advantage to going public is that it allows for an external means of enrichment for executives via stock grants which doesn't tap into actual company revenue. Without stock grants, your company has to pay its executives solely through revenues.
I've always found the notion that equity companies raise money via stock to be kind of funny, because for the most part the actual business doesn't get any working capital except through initial stock offerings. Once the stock is sold, the money made from stock sales is really money made by the individuals holding the stock, not the business itself.
I've always been curious if there's a financial model where companies don't sell equity shares but instead just sell bonds which directly contributed to capitalization.
Based on the InfoGraphics(tm) in TFA, it looks like this is in a pretty well known geographic zone near other ruins/archaeological sites. The larger structures and scope may be new to archaeologists, but it sounds like the general area's likely archaeological value wasn't unknown.
It's not like they found a giant city in an area otherwise considered lacking anything.
In my opinion, the "complexity" of Exchange management for basic installs (single server, no DAG, under 500 users) is greatly overstated. It's gotten somewhat more bothersome to manage with the decline in quality since 2013, frequent CUs and the degrading of the GUI by switching to web only. But overall, it doesn't require a ton of management involvement. Maybe 2-4 hours a week of monitoring at best.
The problem with storage costs, etc, is that storage is relatively cheap and with virtualization there's almost always some marginal capacity available. Even in clients who have migrated to O365, there's still an on-premise server and storage environment, so adding Exchange doesn't really add that much to the larger infrastructure cost. It's mostly licensing.
I don't buy the "beating the retail price on all the stuff they include". O365 is like cable TV, people want it for Exchange and few get deep into the rest of besides maybe Skype for Business. So you're paying for functionality you may not use, like paying for ESPN and getting 4 reality TV channels you won't watch.
Only the largest enterprises have "full time Exchange admins" -- there's just not enough to do for a midsize deployment to pay one person to manage it. I haven't met a full time "email administrator" in nearly 20 years.
I don't think that relying on honestly reported ages won't result in much success.
I have read that 2016 is not the last on-premise version. The next on premise version is in progress and MS has said they have no plans (now, anyway) to eliminate on premise.
I think O365 is too expensive for large clients (at a fairly low scale you could start throwing away hardware and software annually running on premise and still be cheaper) and there are too many data security and compliance requirements that would make companies refuse to go to O365.
AFAIK, it is for finding casual sex partners. I don't know that it's inherently anti-social, if anything, it's at least matching men and women with a shared intent of sexual involvement and potentially reduces some of the chances for sexual harassment which happens when one party wants sex but uses poor cues or inappropriate settings to seek it.
It doesn't surprise me that they would charge older people more. My expectation is that older men prefer younger women, have less access to younger women in their real lives, and would thus be inclined to overwhelm a service like Tinder. Tinder lives and dies by its ability to attract young women to the platform, and these young women are probably generally interested in partners in their peer group, not 40-something men.
If Tinder is flooded with older men, it will lose appeal to younger women and probably fail as a platform as women leave it due to too few desired partner matches. So it makes sense that Tinder wants to charge older people more for access. This will reduce the number of men on their platform and compensate them somewhat for whatever marginal loss in female users it causes.
I'm not sure any of this is unfair to older users. In real life, age discrimination against sexual partners happens. A 45 year old man simply is less desirable to 25 year old women.