And even if they remained MSWindows only, you could run it virtualized. Others have said that's the only way to run MSWindows. I would only disagree because I wouldn't agree to the EULA needed to do that.
You think MSWind10 is the first time this happened? Read the older news. MS was just more aggressive this time, and made it more difficult to avoid without jumping ship. (I jumped ship around 1998.)
It's not really impossible to regain, but it takes a lot more effort the second time, and MS hasn't yet started. PR doesn't count in my book.
OTOH, that's actually about trust that is lost due to inattentiveness. When trust is lost because of what appears to be malice, it actually *may* be impossible to regain...but if it is then it's a lot harder than it would be from mere inattentiveness.
Even then... the thing that drove me from Apple to Linux was a security update. It worked without problem...but they used it to smuggle a license change in that I found unacceptable. So that machine was immediately disconnected from the internet, and everything that could touch the internet was migrated to Linux.
I'll grant that what Microsoft is doing is arguably worse. I don't know, I left MS for Apple when THEY forced a license change on me that I found unacceptable. I think these companies rely on people either not reading or not believing the EULAs.
I think you are arguing that in the specified context we share the same model of what is happening. You are, in the specified context, correct. But there are bound to be lots of contexts where we DON'T share the same model. And even in that one we likely have different edge cases, e.g. would it be more appropriate for me to hit you back, to call the police, or to just run away?
I can't decide whether the summary is wrong or just incomprehensible. I think it's wrong. Of course, it *may* be accurately reporting on the original article... but skimming the article I think that it's (the linked article) incomprehensible rather than just wrong. (It may also be wrong, but that's not something I can check.)
The article seems to imply that a quantum channel can transmit information without transmitting particles. (paraphrase "If the channel transmits a particle then it is discarded".) This seems wrong to me, but it's well out of my area of expertise.
The devil is in the details. I generally favor a tax rate of: y = m * x^n + b; y x where m is the rate, x is the total income from all sources, n is some positive number, and b is adjusted so that when x == 0, you have enough to live on. I often favor a value of n == 1, but there are arguments that it should be slightly higher.
This gives a constant incentive for people to move to a better paying job, but allows them to subsist without one. Necessary with the current high rate of unemployment. This should probably be phased to replace all forms of non-disability subsidies to persons. If medical expenses are fully covered it can also replace disability subsidies. It is, however, important that x includes ALL sources of income.
OTOH, I can see the value of a short-term capital gains tax, especially on stocks, but the same argument probably applies analogously in other fields. For stocks this might be a rather high tax divided by the number of days (in microseconds) between the time the stock was bought and the time it was sold. Something, say, that would equal the value of the stock if it were sold exactly 24 hours after being purchased...more if sold more quickly, and get quite small if you held the stock for awhile. That's probably not quite the right formula...but something along those lines.
How long a time series it takes depends on what you are forecasting, and on how accurate your forecast needs to be. Admittedly, even with several decades worth of evidence forecasts are inherently unreliable, because they are simplifications of reality that inherently ignore multiple external factors.
You also need a (reasonably) accurate theory about what variables are important to whatever it is you are forecasting and how they interact (which should be tested against a subset of the data prior to using it for an actual forecast...as that can be expensive).
FWIW, I used to do traffic forecasts for decades ahead. We didn't expect accuracy much beyond order of magnitude. We often got it, but this always depended on political decisions made in reaction to our forecasts.
Sorry, but causality can NEVER be proven unless you carefully define it in a way that allows statistics to prove it. Which changes it's normal meaning. Normally proof of causality depends on accepting a particular model of what's going on, and people with different models faced with the same data will (properly) come to different conclusions.
While you have some valid points, I'm afraid I don't trust government reports on employment. They is too much observable manipulation going on for me to trust the parts I can't see.
No. There are many ways in which the economy is not a zero-sum game, technology isn't the only reason. Anything which either creates or destroys wealth rather than merely transferring it is a demonstration that the economy is not zero-sum.
This is assuming that it's a rapidly acting ransomware. Some have acted more slowly, and you could lose a week's worth of data, or a month's worth. And...unnh... how long do you keep your backups before recycling?
It depends on exactly which sources you trust. There's reasonable evidence that more than 1/3 supported the US revolution, at least passively, and about 1/3 supported staying with Britain. The exact proportions depend on how you figure support and which colonies you are looking at. Also when. The US revolutionaries were clearly losing until the French supported the revolution. If your viewpoint is from Europe, then that was the French giving Britain the finger, but if your viewpoint is from the US they were only a supporting actor. Both views are valid. And if you asked people after the war was over, most people supported the revolutionaries...except when the economy was really in the dumps.
Few people were either committed revolutionaries or committed loyalists. The committed revolutionaries were generally much more committed than were the crown loyalists.
If you do all that on the same machine, then any privilege escalation exploit can do all of them. To hobble the machine, though, often limits its capabilities unacceptably. This is why I generally assert that the main focus should be on restricting communication to text data only, with no commands beyond those capable of being encoded in HTML1.0 (no ECMAScript, etc.). That way data can be shared, but control is local. And, please, no auto-extracting command processors. No transmission of executable files, however packaged. Etc.
There are cases where it's reasonable to dedicate a computer to each specific task, with hardened programs. This makes updates a hassle, but in those cases it's worth it. Actually, updates are a hassle even in the case where only communications are restricted, but it's not a real problem, and in many of those cases it can even be illegal to patch the software without retesting everything anyway.
IIUC the NSA has "rainbow tables" that allow them access to any Linux system. But these don't allow access to all Linux systems.
This is not to claim that the NSA don't have any exploitable tools that will handle all Linux systems, but I don't know of any. Linux systems can be stripped down and "hardened" in ways that MS intentionally doesn't allow. And, for that matter, the same is true of BSD, even slightly more-so. But not Apple, except, perhaps, their iPhones. As with MS, Apple doesn't let *you* strip down and harden their systems...but, perhaps, they might take security seriously with their iPhones...at least some models. (That's not really the way I'd bet, though.)
It's not just an IT failure. It's a management failure AND a failure of law AND a failure of manufacturing. Many medical devices should NOT have IP connections. They should send and receive text streams that are ONLY data, not executable, even by an interpreter. The laws about certification of equipment should recognized that unpatched devices should be forbidden contact with the internet. Etc. And manufactures should be liable if their device connects to the internet and they don't insist that patches be applied.
The real answer is isolation from external control. They need to be able to accept data, but not commands...commands should be local. (I'll grant that the line between data and commands is a bit fuzzy, so this is would require a bit of interpretation...but definitely no IP connections, and ECMAScript, etc., in any HTML.)
If the NSA wasn't the wrong hands, why didn't they cause this bug to be fixed years ago? It was already in the wrong hands...and probably not only those of the NSA.
I think you're either lying or incompetent. Possibly because you don't use MS Windows. I know that I don't, but this same effect has been reported by enough different people that to deny it is unreasonable. I'm *not* certain that it was true for all editions of MS Windows, as there have been simultaneous reports where some people said it was happening despite being turned off and others denied that they were seeing the effect. One possible explanation is that different editions of MS Windows acted differently.
Actually, I think many of them were primarily used by people who didn't even know they were using a computer. They thought they were using an XRay machine or some such. And that those people had no authority to tamper with the software.
I'll grant that there were lots of other infected groups, but many of them had good reason to not update their systems. The problem is those machines should never have been connected to the net, and THAT is at least 2/3 on the manufacturers. But MS doesn't deserve any denial of blame, nor does NSA. There's lots of groups that you can point to who were doing short-sighted ego-centric optimization. I can't think of even ONE in a position of power that either primarily acted for social benefit, or appears to have had that as their motive.
But what are these Commerce Department standards, and are they any good? This may just be a way to make ALL government departments predictably permeable.
IIUC, there was evidence that some hacking from someone using a Russian handle over an ISP located in Russia happened. Of course, this could all be spoofed, so that's not real evidence that the attack originated in Russia, or that the attacker commonly used a Russian handle, or that the Russian government had any connection. And it's not evidence that nobody else hacked anything. And the story I read didn't even quantify the degree of penetration.
As I said before in a different context, there are degrees and degrees. But there appears to be *some* proof.
I would actually say that it makes sense to accuse, but to be careful in ones wording so that one did not assert. Something like: "I find this highly suspicious, and to me it seems the most probable explanation is malice, of course it could be incompetence."
Were the revealed actions of the powerful different, I'd be less apt to estimate probability in this way, and more willing to accept incompetence as the explanation. Of course, in either case one should hesitate to do any further business with them.
Slashdot Mirror
And even if they remained MSWindows only, you could run it virtualized. Others have said that's the only way to run MSWindows. I would only disagree because I wouldn't agree to the EULA needed to do that.
You think MSWind10 is the first time this happened? Read the older news. MS was just more aggressive this time, and made it more difficult to avoid without jumping ship. (I jumped ship around 1998.)
It's not really impossible to regain, but it takes a lot more effort the second time, and MS hasn't yet started. PR doesn't count in my book.
OTOH, that's actually about trust that is lost due to inattentiveness. When trust is lost because of what appears to be malice, it actually *may* be impossible to regain...but if it is then it's a lot harder than it would be from mere inattentiveness.
Even then... the thing that drove me from Apple to Linux was a security update. It worked without problem...but they used it to smuggle a license change in that I found unacceptable. So that machine was immediately disconnected from the internet, and everything that could touch the internet was migrated to Linux.
I'll grant that what Microsoft is doing is arguably worse. I don't know, I left MS for Apple when THEY forced a license change on me that I found unacceptable. I think these companies rely on people either not reading or not believing the EULAs.
I think you are arguing that in the specified context we share the same model of what is happening. You are, in the specified context, correct. But there are bound to be lots of contexts where we DON'T share the same model. And even in that one we likely have different edge cases, e.g. would it be more appropriate for me to hit you back, to call the police, or to just run away?
I can't claim originality, I copied it from another user.
I can't decide whether the summary is wrong or just incomprehensible. I think it's wrong. Of course, it *may* be accurately reporting on the original article... but skimming the article I think that it's (the linked article) incomprehensible rather than just wrong. (It may also be wrong, but that's not something I can check.)
The article seems to imply that a quantum channel can transmit information without transmitting particles. (paraphrase "If the channel transmits a particle then it is discarded".) This seems wrong to me, but it's well out of my area of expertise.
The devil is in the details. I generally favor a tax rate of:
y = m * x^n + b; y x
where m is the rate, x is the total income from all sources, n is some positive number, and b is adjusted so that when x == 0, you have enough to live on. I often favor a value of n == 1, but there are arguments that it should be slightly higher.
This gives a constant incentive for people to move to a better paying job, but allows them to subsist without one. Necessary with the current high rate of unemployment. This should probably be phased to replace all forms of non-disability subsidies to persons. If medical expenses are fully covered it can also replace disability subsidies. It is, however, important that x includes ALL sources of income.
OTOH, I can see the value of a short-term capital gains tax, especially on stocks, but the same argument probably applies analogously in other fields. For stocks this might be a rather high tax divided by the number of days (in microseconds) between the time the stock was bought and the time it was sold. Something, say, that would equal the value of the stock if it were sold exactly 24 hours after being purchased...more if sold more quickly, and get quite small if you held the stock for awhile. That's probably not quite the right formula...but something along those lines.
How long a time series it takes depends on what you are forecasting, and on how accurate your forecast needs to be. Admittedly, even with several decades worth of evidence forecasts are inherently unreliable, because they are simplifications of reality that inherently ignore multiple external factors.
You also need a (reasonably) accurate theory about what variables are important to whatever it is you are forecasting and how they interact (which should be tested against a subset of the data prior to using it for an actual forecast...as that can be expensive).
FWIW, I used to do traffic forecasts for decades ahead. We didn't expect accuracy much beyond order of magnitude. We often got it, but this always depended on political decisions made in reaction to our forecasts.
Sorry, but causality can NEVER be proven unless you carefully define it in a way that allows statistics to prove it. Which changes it's normal meaning. Normally proof of causality depends on accepting a particular model of what's going on, and people with different models faced with the same data will (properly) come to different conclusions.
While you have some valid points, I'm afraid I don't trust government reports on employment. They is too much observable manipulation going on for me to trust the parts I can't see.
What about this article makes you think they haven't?
No. There are many ways in which the economy is not a zero-sum game, technology isn't the only reason. Anything which either creates or destroys wealth rather than merely transferring it is a demonstration that the economy is not zero-sum.
This is assuming that it's a rapidly acting ransomware. Some have acted more slowly, and you could lose a week's worth of data, or a month's worth. And...unnh... how long do you keep your backups before recycling?
It depends on exactly which sources you trust. There's reasonable evidence that more than 1/3 supported the US revolution, at least passively, and about 1/3 supported staying with Britain. The exact proportions depend on how you figure support and which colonies you are looking at. Also when. The US revolutionaries were clearly losing until the French supported the revolution. If your viewpoint is from Europe, then that was the French giving Britain the finger, but if your viewpoint is from the US they were only a supporting actor. Both views are valid. And if you asked people after the war was over, most people supported the revolutionaries...except when the economy was really in the dumps.
Few people were either committed revolutionaries or committed loyalists. The committed revolutionaries were generally much more committed than were the crown loyalists.
If you do all that on the same machine, then any privilege escalation exploit can do all of them. To hobble the machine, though, often limits its capabilities unacceptably. This is why I generally assert that the main focus should be on restricting communication to text data only, with no commands beyond those capable of being encoded in HTML1.0 (no ECMAScript, etc.). That way data can be shared, but control is local. And, please, no auto-extracting command processors. No transmission of executable files, however packaged. Etc.
There are cases where it's reasonable to dedicate a computer to each specific task, with hardened programs. This makes updates a hassle, but in those cases it's worth it. Actually, updates are a hassle even in the case where only communications are restricted, but it's not a real problem, and in many of those cases it can even be illegal to patch the software without retesting everything anyway.
IIUC the NSA has "rainbow tables" that allow them access to any Linux system. But these don't allow access to all Linux systems.
This is not to claim that the NSA don't have any exploitable tools that will handle all Linux systems, but I don't know of any. Linux systems can be stripped down and "hardened" in ways that MS intentionally doesn't allow. And, for that matter, the same is true of BSD, even slightly more-so. But not Apple, except, perhaps, their iPhones. As with MS, Apple doesn't let *you* strip down and harden their systems...but, perhaps, they might take security seriously with their iPhones...at least some models. (That's not really the way I'd bet, though.)
It's not just an IT failure. It's a management failure AND a failure of law AND a failure of manufacturing. Many medical devices should NOT have IP connections. They should send and receive text streams that are ONLY data, not executable, even by an interpreter. The laws about certification of equipment should recognized that unpatched devices should be forbidden contact with the internet. Etc. And manufactures should be liable if their device connects to the internet and they don't insist that patches be applied.
The real answer is isolation from external control. They need to be able to accept data, but not commands...commands should be local. (I'll grant that the line between data and commands is a bit fuzzy, so this is would require a bit of interpretation...but definitely no IP connections, and ECMAScript, etc., in any HTML.)
If the NSA wasn't the wrong hands, why didn't they cause this bug to be fixed years ago? It was already in the wrong hands...and probably not only those of the NSA.
I think you're either lying or incompetent. Possibly because you don't use MS Windows. I know that I don't, but this same effect has been reported by enough different people that to deny it is unreasonable. I'm *not* certain that it was true for all editions of MS Windows, as there have been simultaneous reports where some people said it was happening despite being turned off and others denied that they were seeing the effect. One possible explanation is that different editions of MS Windows acted differently.
Actually, I think many of them were primarily used by people who didn't even know they were using a computer. They thought they were using an XRay machine or some such. And that those people had no authority to tamper with the software.
I'll grant that there were lots of other infected groups, but many of them had good reason to not update their systems. The problem is those machines should never have been connected to the net, and THAT is at least 2/3 on the manufacturers. But MS doesn't deserve any denial of blame, nor does NSA. There's lots of groups that you can point to who were doing short-sighted ego-centric optimization. I can't think of even ONE in a position of power that either primarily acted for social benefit, or appears to have had that as their motive.
But what are these Commerce Department standards, and are they any good? This may just be a way to make ALL government departments predictably permeable.
IIUC, there was evidence that some hacking from someone using a Russian handle over an ISP located in Russia happened. Of course, this could all be spoofed, so that's not real evidence that the attack originated in Russia, or that the attacker commonly used a Russian handle, or that the Russian government had any connection. And it's not evidence that nobody else hacked anything. And the story I read didn't even quantify the degree of penetration.
As I said before in a different context, there are degrees and degrees. But there appears to be *some* proof.
That seems to be a quote, possibly about something else, but I haven't been able to trace it down.
I would actually say that it makes sense to accuse, but to be careful in ones wording so that one did not assert. Something like:
"I find this highly suspicious, and to me it seems the most probable explanation is malice, of course it could be incompetence."
Were the revealed actions of the powerful different, I'd be less apt to estimate probability in this way, and more willing to accept incompetence as the explanation. Of course, in either case one should hesitate to do any further business with them.