For "best" I think you should substitute "most convincing". A lot of the traditionally accepted forensic tests have never been properly validated. Some which were recently tested failed attempts to validate. (IIRC one that failed was correlating scars on a bullet and the barrel it was fired through...and that one *ought* to have worked.) But this doesn't mean that the technique that has failed validation won't be used in some other case, or that cases where it was used as "convincing evidence" will now be thrown out.
And often evidence that is sent off to a lab for a perfectly valid test will return the answer desired by the prosecution (the usual submitter) even though a repeat test by someone who doesn't know what answer was desired won't find the same answer. Your guess about the reason for this is as well founded as mine, but it makes me quite dubious about most forensic tests. I suspect corruption at some point of the system, but just where the evidence doesn't usually reveal.
That's one, among many, reasons that they would lie. I suppose I should really say "spread falsehood", as they may not be knowingly repeating incorrect information, but they are supposed to be experts in the field, so I think it fair to hold them culpable.
Can you use it if the server stops validating some code? People seem to be assuming that you can, but there have certainly been instances where each time you try to play a file it checks with a server out on the internet to make sure that it's a valid file on a valid device.
Since I haven't used Apple for nearly two decades now, I wouldn't know, and can't check.
That's true. In most industries companies refuse(used to refuse?) to purchase products that are "sole source". This is true to the extent that occasionally a company will(would?) pay to set up a competitor so that they can sell their product.
If drug manufacturing were done properly, sole source would be prohibited. There would always need to be at least two vendors for any drug to be sold. And they would be tightly monitored to prevent collusion on pricing.
As you say. One (US) Memorial Day weekend (not the holiday itself) I came down with acute Cellulitis. I was vomiting and passing out, and screaming in pain in the emergency room for about 12 hours before I was seen. They were short staffed that day, as all but one of the doctors had taken off. This was normally a very good hospital, but not that time. Admittedly, it wasn't a life-threatening emergency...probably. I'm still not sure. I think that was the time I ended up needing a couple of weeks of home care with intravenous injections of antibiotics every few hours.
P.S.: This happened several times before I had a doctor who traced the source of the infection to some open athlete's foot infection sores between the toes. This was cured by always wearing strips of unspun wool between my toes every day, and by drying between my toes before I added the wool. Since then it's been decades without a repeat of the problem, where it had happened nearly once a year for three or four years before that.
Since they're already hiding as much of their profit off shore as they can, this wouldn't cause a change.
OTOH, it's an excellent argument for the position that profits stored off-shore should be taxed as if not off shore. I'm quite dubious about the entire concept of "multi-national corporation". It makes sense for countries with smaller than average economies, but much less sense for those with larger economies. It should be handled by specific international treaties, such as the EU common market, and international ownership of corporations should not be allowed...which is quite different from saying that corporations from one economy should not be allowed to operate within another economy, but they should do so as foreign actors, and should arguably be prohibited from ownership in local corporations. I'm undecided about whether they should be allowed to be owners of local companies, or partners in local companies, though I lean against allowing them to act as partners.
Sorry, but even that correction to the current system wouldn't suffice. When you have an urgent medical problem, the only treatment is the one that is available NOW. (That's part of the definition of urgent.) It's true that for chronic conditions removal of patent limitations would allow a market to be created, but many medical conditions are acute rather than chronic. In fact many of them are both urgent and acute. Even this isn't quite right, as some acute conditions can be scheduled, e.g. conditions created during surgery (e.g. pain control) which could in principle have a market, but in practice can't because the purchaser can't control what drugs, e.g., will be used.
Different circuit court, so perhaps not. Different details on the law, so perhaps not.
OTOH, it would be reasonable to prohibit use of public right of way (i.e. poles) to any company that did not adhere to net neutrality. Or a tax to subsidize other carriers that did provide it. Or lots of other possibilities. All there needs to be is the political will to do so, and the possibilities are nearly endless. This has been said before, long since: "The power to tax is the power to destroy.". The implication that this is always bad is unfounded...but it surely often is.
Power doesn't always corrupt, but that's the safe way to bet. And I agree that checks and balances are needed on everything. But there's a problem there: Who ensures that the folks at the top of the power chain properly adhere to the checks and balances? Who defines the proper balance?
To put it classically: Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch those selfsame watchmen?
In a way, this is the kind of problem that blockchains were designed to address. It's just not clear either that they successfully do so, or that they can successfully do so. Or even if they can, in principle, do so, that they can do so in a way that's not too horribly expensive.
Well, the Experian security hole, that doesn't seem to have been fixed, could cause this to happen. I suspect that there are others that just haven't seen as much public notice. But even Experian didn't see any reason to change their practices.
Maybe. But I won't do on-line banking, and I'm looking into getting a refillable credit card to use for online purchases instead of just avoiding them. So far they've all wanted to charge too much, so I just avoid online purchases, but as local stores go out of business that's becoming less practical.
You are assuming, or it seems as if you are assuming, that the backdoors aren't mandated by the governments that allow the companies to operate. I find that quite a questionable assumption. In certain cases we definitely know that this or that government demanded that this or that backdoor be present, and in some other cases there is reasonable circumstantial evidence. True, in most cases there is no evidence, but there's no evidence either way, so my default assumption is that it is similar to the cases where we do have evidence. Show me other evidence, and I'll change my mind.
Some examples where this doesn't seem to apply are Meltdown and Spectre. Meltdown clearly looks like Intel chasing illegitimate profits. Spectre is probably people thinking that "that exploit is surely not feasible", and unlikely to be greed (my estimate).
Now the management engine, etc. are probably to fulfill some government mandate. Probably a US government mandate, but they aren't the only suspects.
That's more of an RCA (circa 1980) and they were probably copying some earlier manufacturer.
There are lots of good reasons to split the market that way, and if you don't, prices on the low end will rise considerable, and prices on the high end will drop quite a bit less...I'm presuming you intend the same percentage of profit (though even that's iffy, as the profit at the high end is probably higher as a percentage than the profit at the low end, where you can dump the seconds).
No, they're fucking liars, and I don't often swear.
That said, that would make "unlimited bandwidth" more obviously impossible, and some people would object to having their accounts metered. Some people already do. But unlimited bandwidth is impossible. Everything has a limit. You pay for what you think you might need. But only marketers and suckers think that "unlimited access" means any more than "you can be connected whenever we're up". Read over what they actually promised you in the contract. They probably promised not to offer you more than a certain connect speed. (Look for the words "up to".)
If you ask specifically about compilers, I can only think of a couple of instances, and they didn't really end up in court. (In one case that was because Sun sued MS over J++ before the event.)
If you ask more generally about code produced by MS, there have been lots of instances where the code could only legally be used linked with certain licenses...and it wasn't always clear which ones.
IIUC efence and valgrind don't check for references beyond array bounds, but only for references beyond allocated memory. So this is different (and less expensive) than what they're proposing.
There have been lots of studies of rehabilitation, but this is different from showing that rehabilitation works. Often what they show instead is either that some particular form of rehabilitation does/does not work in some particular context...without showing that if the context had originally been present the need would not have appeared.
It also appears to be true that just as some people are unable to sense others emotions easily, other people are unable to see any reason not to take advantage of them. The first we call a medical conditions, the second we don't recognize...but it should properly also be considered a medical condition. Sociopath doesn't quite fit what I'm describing, though it would be a subset of it.
What's needed is not independent comparison (well, that's needed, but that's not the problem). What's needed is a license that guarantees that there's no copyright or patented code in the result. I.e., a guarantee that the generated code can be used under any license of your choice without legal danger from either Microsoft or from any company with which they have or have had a business relationship unless the source code compiled by a standard C compiler would have the same problem.
Well, this isn't quite the same comment, but if the language is compatible with C, or some subset of C, couldn't you compile the "safe version", run your tests, and then, when you were satisfied, compile with standard C? Surely the answers ought to be guaranteed to be the same if there's no error.
It's not clear that "rehabilitation" is possible. I don't think it's ever really been studied.
OTOH, it's also not clear that if people have a chance, rehabilitation is necessary. Most people really don't want to be outcasts. Some people just don't see that they have any choice in the matter. Often their perceptions seem to be correct.
OTOH, when hiring someone for a position of trust, I'd almost always prefer people who didn't have a valid reason to not trust them.
Maybe they didn't keep that policy (without knowing which one). At the time I applied you could apply to just your favorite campus, with a large chance of being turned down. Later I was told that this only applied to certain campuses. Later still I was told they were harmonizing the policy across the university campuses. Shortly after that I graduated and stopped paying attention.
Also, the year before I applied at certain campuses you could specify that this was the one you wanted, but other campuses didn't allow that.
OTOH, perhaps this was all driven by computerizing their system. They never said that, but that was certainly going on at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
For "best" I think you should substitute "most convincing". A lot of the traditionally accepted forensic tests have never been properly validated. Some which were recently tested failed attempts to validate. (IIRC one that failed was correlating scars on a bullet and the barrel it was fired through...and that one *ought* to have worked.) But this doesn't mean that the technique that has failed validation won't be used in some other case, or that cases where it was used as "convincing evidence" will now be thrown out.
And often evidence that is sent off to a lab for a perfectly valid test will return the answer desired by the prosecution (the usual submitter) even though a repeat test by someone who doesn't know what answer was desired won't find the same answer. Your guess about the reason for this is as well founded as mine, but it makes me quite dubious about most forensic tests. I suspect corruption at some point of the system, but just where the evidence doesn't usually reveal.
That's one, among many, reasons that they would lie. I suppose I should really say "spread falsehood", as they may not be knowingly repeating incorrect information, but they are supposed to be experts in the field, so I think it fair to hold them culpable.
Can you use it if the server stops validating some code?
People seem to be assuming that you can, but there have certainly been instances where each time you try to play a file it checks with a server out on the internet to make sure that it's a valid file on a valid device.
Since I haven't used Apple for nearly two decades now, I wouldn't know, and can't check.
Are you surprised to be told that your professors may have lied to you to benefit entrenched power?
That's true. In most industries companies refuse(used to refuse?) to purchase products that are "sole source". This is true to the extent that occasionally a company will(would?) pay to set up a competitor so that they can sell their product.
If drug manufacturing were done properly, sole source would be prohibited. There would always need to be at least two vendors for any drug to be sold. And they would be tightly monitored to prevent collusion on pricing.
As you say. One (US) Memorial Day weekend (not the holiday itself) I came down with acute Cellulitis. I was vomiting and passing out, and screaming in pain in the emergency room for about 12 hours before I was seen. They were short staffed that day, as all but one of the doctors had taken off.
This was normally a very good hospital, but not that time. Admittedly, it wasn't a life-threatening emergency...probably. I'm still not sure. I think that was the time I ended up needing a couple of weeks of home care with intravenous injections of antibiotics every few hours.
P.S.: This happened several times before I had a doctor who traced the source of the infection to some open athlete's foot infection sores between the toes. This was cured by always wearing strips of unspun wool between my toes every day, and by drying between my toes before I added the wool. Since then it's been decades without a repeat of the problem, where it had happened nearly once a year for three or four years before that.
Since they're already hiding as much of their profit off shore as they can, this wouldn't cause a change.
OTOH, it's an excellent argument for the position that profits stored off-shore should be taxed as if not off shore. I'm quite dubious about the entire concept of "multi-national corporation". It makes sense for countries with smaller than average economies, but much less sense for those with larger economies. It should be handled by specific international treaties, such as the EU common market, and international ownership of corporations should not be allowed...which is quite different from saying that corporations from one economy should not be allowed to operate within another economy, but they should do so as foreign actors, and should arguably be prohibited from ownership in local corporations. I'm undecided about whether they should be allowed to be owners of local companies, or partners in local companies, though I lean against allowing them to act as partners.
Sorry, but even that correction to the current system wouldn't suffice. When you have an urgent medical problem, the only treatment is the one that is available NOW. (That's part of the definition of urgent.) It's true that for chronic conditions removal of patent limitations would allow a market to be created, but many medical conditions are acute rather than chronic. In fact many of them are both urgent and acute. Even this isn't quite right, as some acute conditions can be scheduled, e.g. conditions created during surgery (e.g. pain control) which could in principle have a market, but in practice can't because the purchaser can't control what drugs, e.g., will be used.
Different circuit court, so perhaps not. Different details on the law, so perhaps not.
OTOH, it would be reasonable to prohibit use of public right of way (i.e. poles) to any company that did not adhere to net neutrality. Or a tax to subsidize other carriers that did provide it. Or lots of other possibilities. All there needs to be is the political will to do so, and the possibilities are nearly endless. This has been said before, long since: "The power to tax is the power to destroy.". The implication that this is always bad is unfounded...but it surely often is.
Power doesn't always corrupt, but that's the safe way to bet. And I agree that checks and balances are needed on everything. But there's a problem there:
Who ensures that the folks at the top of the power chain properly adhere to the checks and balances? Who defines the proper balance?
To put it classically:
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who will watch those selfsame watchmen?
In a way, this is the kind of problem that blockchains were designed to address. It's just not clear either that they successfully do so, or that they can successfully do so. Or even if they can, in principle, do so, that they can do so in a way that's not too horribly expensive.
HP? Sun?
Apple seems to be running into problems, too. Just yesterday I read about a different prominent system vendor with financial problems.
Saying they aren't having the same problems is probably accurate, depending on how you describe the problems, but they sure are having problems.
Well, the Experian security hole, that doesn't seem to have been fixed, could cause this to happen. I suspect that there are others that just haven't seen as much public notice. But even Experian didn't see any reason to change their practices.
Maybe. But I won't do on-line banking, and I'm looking into getting a refillable credit card to use for online purchases instead of just avoiding them. So far they've all wanted to charge too much, so I just avoid online purchases, but as local stores go out of business that's becoming less practical.
You mean like Gnome3 instead of Gnome2?
You are assuming, or it seems as if you are assuming, that the backdoors aren't mandated by the governments that allow the companies to operate. I find that quite a questionable assumption. In certain cases we definitely know that this or that government demanded that this or that backdoor be present, and in some other cases there is reasonable circumstantial evidence. True, in most cases there is no evidence, but there's no evidence either way, so my default assumption is that it is similar to the cases where we do have evidence. Show me other evidence, and I'll change my mind.
Some examples where this doesn't seem to apply are Meltdown and Spectre. Meltdown clearly looks like Intel chasing illegitimate profits. Spectre is probably people thinking that "that exploit is surely not feasible", and unlikely to be greed (my estimate).
Now the management engine, etc. are probably to fulfill some government mandate. Probably a US government mandate, but they aren't the only suspects.
That's more of an RCA (circa 1980) and they were probably copying some earlier manufacturer.
There are lots of good reasons to split the market that way, and if you don't, prices on the low end will rise considerable, and prices on the high end will drop quite a bit less...I'm presuming you intend the same percentage of profit (though even that's iffy, as the profit at the high end is probably higher as a percentage than the profit at the low end, where you can dump the seconds).
No, they're fucking liars, and I don't often swear.
That said, that would make "unlimited bandwidth" more obviously impossible, and some people would object to having their accounts metered. Some people already do. But unlimited bandwidth is impossible. Everything has a limit. You pay for what you think you might need. But only marketers and suckers think that "unlimited access" means any more than "you can be connected whenever we're up". Read over what they actually promised you in the contract. They probably promised not to offer you more than a certain connect speed. (Look for the words "up to".)
From my perspective it was considerably better. Tech sites were easier to find, and there was a lot less garbage. And almost no spam.
OTOH, there are lots of different use cases, and mine is a small subset. And if my use case were dominant, we'd all still be on dial-up.
If you ask specifically about compilers, I can only think of a couple of instances, and they didn't really end up in court. (In one case that was because Sun sued MS over J++ before the event.)
If you ask more generally about code produced by MS, there have been lots of instances where the code could only legally be used linked with certain licenses...and it wasn't always clear which ones.
IIUC efence and valgrind don't check for references beyond array bounds, but only for references beyond allocated memory. So this is different (and less expensive) than what they're proposing.
There have been lots of studies of rehabilitation, but this is different from showing that rehabilitation works. Often what they show instead is either that some particular form of rehabilitation does/does not work in some particular context...without showing that if the context had originally been present the need would not have appeared.
It also appears to be true that just as some people are unable to sense others emotions easily, other people are unable to see any reason not to take advantage of them. The first we call a medical conditions, the second we don't recognize...but it should properly also be considered a medical condition. Sociopath doesn't quite fit what I'm describing, though it would be a subset of it.
What's needed is not independent comparison (well, that's needed, but that's not the problem). What's needed is a license that guarantees that there's no copyright or patented code in the result. I.e., a guarantee that the generated code can be used under any license of your choice without legal danger from either Microsoft or from any company with which they have or have had a business relationship unless the source code compiled by a standard C compiler would have the same problem.
Well, this isn't quite the same comment, but if the language is compatible with C, or some subset of C, couldn't you compile the "safe version", run your tests, and then, when you were satisfied, compile with standard C? Surely the answers ought to be guaranteed to be the same if there's no error.
It's not clear that "rehabilitation" is possible. I don't think it's ever really been studied.
OTOH, it's also not clear that if people have a chance, rehabilitation is necessary. Most people really don't want to be outcasts. Some people just don't see that they have any choice in the matter. Often their perceptions seem to be correct.
OTOH, when hiring someone for a position of trust, I'd almost always prefer people who didn't have a valid reason to not trust them.
Maybe they didn't keep that policy (without knowing which one). At the time I applied you could apply to just your favorite campus, with a large chance of being turned down. Later I was told that this only applied to certain campuses. Later still I was told they were harmonizing the policy across the university campuses. Shortly after that I graduated and stopped paying attention.
Also, the year before I applied at certain campuses you could specify that this was the one you wanted, but other campuses didn't allow that.
OTOH, perhaps this was all driven by computerizing their system. They never said that, but that was certainly going on at the same time.