The actual unblemished truth is that the popular "renewable" sources can not supply but a minority proportion of the world's needs for energy.
[citation needed]
TFA:
Germany wants to boost the share of the country's power needs generated by renewable energies to 35 percent by 2020 from 17 percent at present.
Seems that Germany thinks is possible to cover more than 1/3 of its energy needs from renewables, in only 8 years from now. This on top of Germany already producing less than half CO2/capita than some other developed nation.
One hack and you have everyone's Facebook, Twitter, Dropbox, etc account info, packaged up nice and neat.
How convenient!
Hey... if ifttt.com knows so much about you, letting others to do it the same is not in their interest... hurts their business of selling aggregated views on the different "personas" you adopt on the net. As they aren't "selling" anything else to you (but a mashup), security should be the paramount for their credibility (this is not to say that it will actually be).
..."dashboard" all the time?
That seems pretty resource intensive if you consider large amounts of users, which it might actually get considering how useful it would be.
They should create an extension to do this stuff on client-end as well if they are connected to the internet. It would save them on resources considerably, and most people would probably rather like an extension for it too.
You see... what you propose is not in their interest. They will be interested to get as much information about you as possible transiting their "mash-up" - this is how they'll know you better and can sell these details (anonymized, of course... but the ToS may change in the future) to whoever pays better.
Are we really heading in a direction where we have to *program* how we communicate with friends? Isn't that what these services are supposed to *solve*?
No, we are heading in a direction where no only FB, G+ and others will know more or less complete "fragments" of our identities, but there will be an entity (ifttt.com) that will know about all of them in the same time.
There's at least two points of failure in your counter here. First, what Microsoft is proposing here isn't a "software as a service" compiler, the title of the article is simply wrong.
Nope, this one is not: I didn't assume this service in the SaaS meaning (not this time anyway).
Anything that a hacker could do to this compiler, he could do to a normal MS compiler.
Not quite... lately it became easier to attack a running process than to "infect a file" (signed executables and whatnot), especially if that process is a server accepting request from other processes running under user privileges.
Second, that's not what you said. What you said was that any compiler that you haven't coded and built yourself is untrustworthy.
I didn't intend to say this, but to point the extra weakness: not only a file (the compiler executable image) but now an always running process as well (even if I admit, my intention wasn't clear).
Other than that, Ken's "thought experiment" is extremely paranoid, I agree... but one can choose to pick something that may be less extreme (and possibly valid, don't know yet how probably valid) from something paranoid-to-extreme.
If not, then you are really not in much of a better position than you would be using a closed source compiler.
Well, even if I didn't, I'd argue I'm in a better position when using open source compilers... granted, not 100%. And certainly more secure if using a compiler as a tool than a compiler as a service always running... on a Windows box.
You also can't trust food you didn't grow yourself. Doors and locks you didn't build yourself. People whom you haven't given birth to and watched from infancy. The level of paranoia represented by that quote is borderline hysteria. [a.s.o.]
If you'd stop to think a moment instead of rambling...
Speaking hypothetically, say I'd be a hacker... wouldn't it be nice to successfully attack "an always running compiler service", inject a little DLL there, and make all the applications you'd build and deploy in your organisation spy for me? Still think is hysterical paranoid? Or do you trust Microsoft to make this "compiler service" impervious?
Are you a troll, or just dim? If you don't understand anything the article speaks about, it might be a good idea to just not comment.
If I'd follow your advice:
1. I'd lose the chance to stand corrected - I'm not afraid to be in such a position, I'd suggest you to try sometime.
2. life may become a bit boring for you. I mean, you wouldn't have too many occasions to call someone a "troll or dim-witted". How would you like "good manner and menuet dancing" all the day everyday?
No, you're not getting it right, this is a service as in a process always running on your computer, not as in a cloud based compiler. The point is your program can dynamically call the compiler with additional source code to be compiled so your program can modify itself even though it's in a relatively static language like C#.
I'd mod your post +(Insightful/Informative)... my fault, thanks for pointing it out.
I don't think you read the (already classic?) Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust "You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself." - if your binary compiler injects a backdoor in the object code, then even recompiling the compiler from source may not get you out of the woods.
Otherwise, let point to you the (in my opinion) relevant phrases in TFA:
Today's commercial compilers are black boxes, Hejlsberg said.
While Hejlsberg is probably right, fortunately in this world there are such things as non-blackbox-compilers.
Internally, a compiler generates a lot of information about the program it is building, he explained, although typically the developer doesn't have access to that data.
Roslyn can offer access to this data, Hejlsberg said. The data can then be used by Visual Studio to generate more options for programmers
Hmm... am I getting it right?
1. personal data on social networks (to be used by markedroids and other spammers)
2. your daily travel available to your mobile services provider
3. your documents in the fog of a cloud
4. and now... your source-code and binaries available to the entity that provides you "compilation services"?
Oh, dear, where will it stop... Thanks but no thanks, I think I'll be sticking with offline compilers, the open-source ones in particular.
How could McAfee slow down your OS if you boot from CD?
By forcing your CD drive and HD to run in PIO mode?
PIO mode? Well, that's blinding fast. They'd better do something with the bytes they a readying one-by-one into CPU registries - like scanning them for malware... multiple times... reading them again when they fail to find a certain piece of malware...
We're one step closer now with this... Oh looky, we have the perfect way to stop this from happening. A totally secure DRM'd BIOS. Just use our product and the secure Internet won't have any spyware/malware/etc.
Secured BIOS doesn't automatically mean the sky is falling on a DRM-ed world (I can have one of the OpenBIOS variant secured).
Google takes these patents subject to existing cross licenses. How many competitors (such as Apple and MS) already have cross licenses with IBM that cover these?
Interesting! But... what a cross-licensing agreement is good for if the cross-licensor still attacks you? (is it any different from having the patent war-chest without any cross-licensing?)
Slashdot Mirror
The actual unblemished truth is that the popular "renewable" sources can not supply but a minority proportion of the world's needs for energy.
[citation needed]
TFA:
Germany wants to boost the share of the country's power needs generated by renewable energies to 35 percent by 2020 from 17 percent at present.
Seems that Germany thinks is possible to cover more than 1/3 of its energy needs from renewables, in only 8 years from now. This on top of Germany already producing less than half CO2/capita than some other developed nation.
What a poetic post, maybe we should translate it to Aramaic, put it to music, and sing it once a year?
At Eurovision song contest?
For a long time the only planets we found were 'hot Jupiters'. Jupiter sized planets very close to their star (inside Mercury's orbit).
Why weren't these planets stripped of their atmosphere?
Because nobody's there to sing "You can leave your hat on"?
One hack and you have everyone's Facebook, Twitter, Dropbox, etc account info, packaged up nice and neat.
How convenient!
Hey... if ifttt.com knows so much about you, letting others to do it the same is not in their interest... hurts their business of selling aggregated views on the different "personas" you adopt on the net. As they aren't "selling" anything else to you (but a mashup), security should be the paramount for their credibility (this is not to say that it will actually be).
..."dashboard" all the time? That seems pretty resource intensive if you consider large amounts of users, which it might actually get considering how useful it would be.
They should create an extension to do this stuff on client-end as well if they are connected to the internet. It would save them on resources considerably, and most people would probably rather like an extension for it too.
You see... what you propose is not in their interest. They will be interested to get as much information about you as possible transiting their "mash-up" - this is how they'll know you better and can sell these details (anonymized, of course... but the ToS may change in the future) to whoever pays better.
Are we really heading in a direction where we have to *program* how we communicate with friends? Isn't that what these services are supposed to *solve*?
No, we are heading in a direction where no only FB, G+ and others will know more or less complete "fragments" of our identities, but there will be an entity (ifttt.com) that will know about all of them in the same time.
There's at least two points of failure in your counter here. First, what Microsoft is proposing here isn't a "software as a service" compiler, the title of the article is simply wrong.
Nope, this one is not: I didn't assume this service in the SaaS meaning (not this time anyway).
Anything that a hacker could do to this compiler, he could do to a normal MS compiler.
Not quite... lately it became easier to attack a running process than to "infect a file" (signed executables and whatnot), especially if that process is a server accepting request from other processes running under user privileges.
Second, that's not what you said. What you said was that any compiler that you haven't coded and built yourself is untrustworthy.
I didn't intend to say this, but to point the extra weakness: not only a file (the compiler executable image) but now an always running process as well (even if I admit, my intention wasn't clear).
Other than that, Ken's "thought experiment" is extremely paranoid, I agree... but one can choose to pick something that may be less extreme (and possibly valid, don't know yet how probably valid) from something paranoid-to-extreme.
On my work network, which is a bit too relaxed for my tastes, I probably wouldn't.
Exactly my point
If not, then you are really not in much of a better position than you would be using a closed source compiler.
Well, even if I didn't, I'd argue I'm in a better position when using open source compilers... granted, not 100%.
And certainly more secure if using a compiler as a tool than a compiler as a service always running... on a Windows box.
You also can't trust food you didn't grow yourself. Doors and locks you didn't build yourself. People whom you haven't given birth to and watched from infancy. The level of paranoia represented by that quote is borderline hysteria. [a.s.o.]
If you'd stop to think a moment instead of rambling...
Speaking hypothetically, say I'd be a hacker... wouldn't it be nice to successfully attack "an always running compiler service", inject a little DLL there, and make all the applications you'd build and deploy in your organisation spy for me? Still think is hysterical paranoid? Or do you trust Microsoft to make this "compiler service" impervious?
Are you a troll, or just dim? If you don't understand anything the article speaks about, it might be a good idea to just not comment.
If I'd follow your advice:
1. I'd lose the chance to stand corrected - I'm not afraid to be in such a position, I'd suggest you to try sometime.
2. life may become a bit boring for you. I mean, you wouldn't have too many occasions to call someone a "troll or dim-witted". How would you like "good manner and menuet dancing" all the day everyday?
No, you're not getting it right, this is a service as in a process always running on your computer, not as in a cloud based compiler. The point is your program can dynamically call the compiler with additional source code to be compiled so your program can modify itself even though it's in a relatively static language like C#.
I'd mod your post +(Insightful/Informative)... my fault, thanks for pointing it out.
I don't think you even really read the summary...
I don't think you read the (already classic?) Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust
"You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself." - if your binary compiler injects a backdoor in the object code, then even recompiling the compiler from source may not get you out of the woods.
Otherwise, let point to you the (in my opinion) relevant phrases in TFA:
Today's commercial compilers are black boxes, Hejlsberg said.
While Hejlsberg is probably right, fortunately in this world there are such things as non-blackbox-compilers.
Internally, a compiler generates a lot of information about the program it is building, he explained, although typically the developer doesn't have access to that data.
Roslyn can offer access to this data, Hejlsberg said. The data can then be used by Visual Studio to generate more options for programmers
Hmm... am I getting it right?
1. personal data on social networks (to be used by markedroids and other spammers)
2. your daily travel available to your mobile services provider
3. your documents in the fog of a cloud
4. and now... your source-code and binaries available to the entity that provides you "compilation services"?
Oh, dear, where will it stop...
Thanks but no thanks, I think I'll be sticking with offline compilers, the open-source ones in particular.
It might be more accurate to just say they are going to throw away another $530 million before they get around to killing it.
Well... looks like for the US Senate, the death by a thousand cuts is funnier.
I have often seen "virii" used as the plural.
Which is weird, given there's no "virius" as a noun (which would have the virii as the plural form)
How could McAfee slow down your OS if you boot from CD?
By forcing your CD drive and HD to run in PIO mode?
PIO mode? Well, that's blinding fast. They'd better do something with the bytes they a readying one-by-one into CPU registries - like scanning them for malware... multiple times... reading them again when they fail to find a certain piece of malware...
We're one step closer now with this... Oh looky, we have the perfect way to stop this from happening. A totally secure DRM'd BIOS. Just use our product and the secure Internet won't have any spyware/malware/etc.
Secured BIOS doesn't automatically mean the sky is falling on a DRM-ed world (I can have one of the OpenBIOS variant secured).
Yeah, my apologies. Still having an opinion on vira/viruses that you can share?
But making humans is one of the few things humans excel at and enjoy!
9 months+ to produce one? And in over 96% of the cases, only one?
And you call this efficiency?
Eh. I'm vegan.
Has Vega developed any habitable planets recently?
Google takes these patents subject to existing cross licenses. How many competitors (such as Apple and MS) already have cross licenses with IBM that cover these?
Interesting! But... what a cross-licensing agreement is good for if the cross-licensor still attacks you?
(is it any different from having the patent war-chest without any cross-licensing?)
Hard to believe people get paid to sift through all these garbage patents looking for infractions. What a colossal waste of productive time.
OT - still better than having the same people turning politicians, don't you think?
Why don't they make a bootable antirootkit like bitdefender?
How could McAfee slow down your OS if you boot from CD?