Thank you. I was trying to remember which company it was that was into increasing its market share. I couldn't remember if it was Apple or Samsung, but now that you refreshed my memory I do recall that Apple doesn't want that and Samsung does.
So unless someone is using Open Source with no internet connection (see also earlier post in this thread from this doofus) then they aren't serious about privacy? I was so sure banks were serious about their privacy too.
Your whole diatribe is ridiculous. The parts of the system to which you refer aren't even the ones affected, nor would they be the way you describe it. These are the GUI based interfaces that are experiencing the issue, not the core system itself as you falsely assumed.
It is not hypocritical for them to warn against the dangers of applying Windows updates, especially for industrial applications. Microsoft has a well established pattern of changing functionality without warning via patches and they Bork systems on a regular basis.
Bullshit. The answer is simple. It is impossible to have security and not have security at the same time. There is no security, except when it comes to the FBI. There is no discussion. It is that simple, because math.
Yes, we agree that opinions vary. Where we don't seem to come to an understanding... That of the human condition it took 2 decades for this flaw, that the designers, according to you, were supposed to have seen through their infallible eye.
I'm way more upset about the Intel ME. That is a far greater and easily exploited vulnerability. Fixing this is just putting lipstick on a pig
If there is one person whose opinion I'm concerned with it's an AC that makes blatantly false claims, and starts their sentences with "man", man. Thanks for the laugh little stalker coward.
Even if that happened they are either falsely marketing their product as white noise (it isn't random) which opens them up to a class action lawsuit or there is no way to prove it because it is random.
White Noise is by definition random. If there is a version of the signal that is more or less soothing, then by definition it isn't white noise. If 5 companies are claiming this recording infringes then either all or wrong or one is wrong, so unless they all go after each other they can't in good faith argue that they believe their claims. There is literally no way they can win this if he doesn't cave.
No, it isn't. It's how things work. People react like idiots either way, as seen here, but any business is going to do damage control. People are making this sound like it is a much bigger issue than it is even with proper explanations. Res ipso loquitor.
You should learn to read. What I wrote has nothing to do with what you are prattling on about. OP was complaining that Intel didn't just immediately take his "friends" word for it that he had identified a problem in their hardware. You are complaining about how things are being handled after they did the due diligence he thinks his "friend" shouldn't have had to wait for.
Does your friend know anything about technology, how complex it is, how easy it is to get something wrong, how hard it is to track the issue down, and how many times a customer claims their problem is the vendors fault when it is really a bug in the clients implementation? Because anyone who is incensed over this, including yourself, certainly doesn't.
Having done both I can assure you that is not true. Just as digital is a special case of analog, so to is software a special case of hardware. They are symbiotic, and a simple "hello world" circuit (led turns on e.g.) is no more complex than the software equivalent. Complexity is in the design, not the domain. The kernel is as complex as the CPU. In fact it just got more complex because of a flaw in the CPU.
Well, you certainly are an idiot if you think the fabric of humanity isn't being rewoven by technology. I concede that's one thing that won't change... there will still be lots and lots of idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. I was trying to remember which company it was that was into increasing its market share. I couldn't remember if it was Apple or Samsung, but now that you refreshed my memory I do recall that Apple doesn't want that and Samsung does.
So unless someone is using Open Source with no internet connection (see also earlier post in this thread from this doofus) then they aren't serious about privacy? I was so sure banks were serious about their privacy too.
The sky isn't blue
Because customers want the nicotine. You really couldn't figure that out for yourself?
Your whole diatribe is ridiculous. The parts of the system to which you refer aren't even the ones affected, nor would they be the way you describe it. These are the GUI based interfaces that are experiencing the issue, not the core system itself as you falsely assumed.
It is not hypocritical for them to warn against the dangers of applying Windows updates, especially for industrial applications. Microsoft has a well established pattern of changing functionality without warning via patches and they Bork systems on a regular basis.
Yes, it's another in a long line if examples of Trump making America great again the same way inspector Closseau solves crimes.
Somebody should invent Free / Open Source software!
Bullshit. The answer is simple. It is impossible to have security and not have security at the same time. There is no security, except when it comes to the FBI. There is no discussion. It is that simple, because math.
In fact I don't think I've ever seen a house with shingles that didn't have them on the main roof. That's kind of the point of having them.
Yes, we agree that opinions vary. Where we don't seem to come to an understanding... That of the human condition it took 2 decades for this flaw, that the designers, according to you, were supposed to have seen through their infallible eye.
I'm way more upset about the Intel ME. That is a far greater and easily exploited vulnerability. Fixing this is just putting lipstick on a pig
If there is one person whose opinion I'm concerned with it's an AC that makes blatantly false claims, and starts their sentences with "man", man. Thanks for the laugh little stalker coward.
Keep crying. I'm sure businesses will start taking risks that could cost them billions if you whine loud enough.
Even if that happened they are either falsely marketing their product as white noise (it isn't random) which opens them up to a class action lawsuit or there is no way to prove it because it is random.
White Noise is by definition random. If there is a version of the signal that is more or less soothing, then by definition it isn't white noise. If 5 companies are claiming this recording infringes then either all or wrong or one is wrong, so unless they all go after each other they can't in good faith argue that they believe their claims. There is literally no way they can win this if he doesn't cave.
No, it isn't. It's how things work. People react like idiots either way, as seen here, but any business is going to do damage control. People are making this sound like it is a much bigger issue than it is even with proper explanations. Res ipso loquitor.
You should learn to read. What I wrote has nothing to do with what you are prattling on about. OP was complaining that Intel didn't just immediately take his "friends" word for it that he had identified a problem in their hardware. You are complaining about how things are being handled after they did the due diligence he thinks his "friend" shouldn't have had to wait for.
Does your friend know anything about technology, how complex it is, how easy it is to get something wrong, how hard it is to track the issue down, and how many times a customer claims their problem is the vendors fault when it is really a bug in the clients implementation? Because anyone who is incensed over this, including yourself, certainly doesn't.
First of all you don't need one. You simply choose to allow a permanent exception. Second, if you really want one then you use a self-signed cert.
Having done both I can assure you that is not true. Just as digital is a special case of analog, so to is software a special case of hardware. They are symbiotic, and a simple "hello world" circuit (led turns on e.g.) is no more complex than the software equivalent. Complexity is in the design, not the domain. The kernel is as complex as the CPU. In fact it just got more complex because of a flaw in the CPU.
Well, you certainly are an idiot if you think the fabric of humanity isn't being rewoven by technology. I concede that's one thing that won't change ... there will still be lots and lots of idiots.
There is only one. You won't find any legitimate ones because it is to easy to debunk the myths if they are gathered together in a single page.
What drugs are you on?
That isn't how SSL/TLS work. There is no "client" certificate. You are an uneducated conspiracy theorist.
Right. We need to do away with backbones! The whole internet could be crippled by a few companies! Idiot.