I banned Powerpoint presentations. Saves huge amounts of time, and server space. I don't have figures to support it, but I strongly believe it raises moral and stops a decline in general intelligence.
I note that the NSW Police was a user of Finn Fisher - but in that case also I've seen no evidence they misused it.
Of course you haven't... until the Hacking Team breach, you didn't know they were using it at all, am I right?
With no transparency comes no accountability.
Human nature is predictable. If you want to give me primae facia evidence that they aren't abusing it, then show me the warrants they've obtained for the use of the product.
You make the (spurious) claim - it's incumbent on you to provide the evidence, don't you think?
Your rant is misplaced - you want the Youtuber comments section. And your logic schema is missing the elements required for a sane person to reach the claimed conclusion you try and pass as fact. Even if you are only 16 you still are woefully immature.
The NSW Police do have warrants that would enable them to use Finn Fisher, they also did not buy the licenses from hidden slush funds (which is kind of telling). The absence of proof they don't misuse surveillance is not proof that they do. Nor is it proof that any misuse is of the sort of scale you imply with your 4chan-style rants.
Your wilful failure to extrapolate is the reason why people burnt witches, and will do so again. Thanks for lowering the standard.
Saying that nobody misused it whatsoever is like Russia claiming they don't have any handicap or gay people... just simply ridiculous.
See - now you're just being stupid (and demonstrating your ignorance about Russia). The same deranged argument and damaged logic "proves" the existence of shape-shifting lizard people that run the world. Hopefully your mum keeps the pitchfork and matches safely locked away.
I am sure they could just enact some civil immunity law if there isnt one already. A friend of mine got t-boned by a school bus (no children aboard at the time) making an illegal left turn. Even though the police at the scene ruled the accident to be entirely the fault of the bus driver there was nothing she could do. Her insurance company had to pay the entire claim and she was stuck with the deductible. Could not sue for any damages etc.
Ouch!. My instinct would be to blame the insurance company - at the very least they may not have provided a product fit for intended use (but I'm not particularly litigious or a lawyer). I guess that's a big part of the issue - the party that makes the decisions on when roads are unsustainable to maintain is the same party that passes the laws.
The same as the USA, Australia has many old mining towns that are now abandoned (and a currently contentious one where a town build for asbestos mining is forcibly being closed and some residents refuse to leave). Since it's not economically feasible to maintain the roads or the towns, they're either closed off (costs a sign and a little work with a bulldozer to dig a trench and make a barrier mound with the spoils). The closure probably falls under the last costs for maintenance. I'm pretty sure some of the covered bridges in Southern USA come under the same category. Sure there may be costs born by the taxpayer when people hurt themselves using them - as there is when they have accidents on their own property which the government is not obligated to provide maintenance.
We have a ridiculous situation where playgrounds are downgraded because of the insurance costs due to damages claims by people who hurt themselves on swings and slides - which is an area where maybe the government should pass immunity laws. In the end I suspect it's a simple issue of costs - taxpayers often have bigger mouths than wallets, and payout decisions made by juries don't help things.
When the revolution comes we're gonna need a longer wall for the lawyers.
The cost is not zero.[...] You'll be flung off of your bike, and you'll end up face first on the crumbling remains of the sidewalk.[...]"
Which is different from falling off your bike while riding across a paddock how? That an ambulance chasing low-life law firm might want you to pursue damages? Pursue your imaginary claim if you like - but beware that Holdem, Scoldem and Buggerem don't take you to court in a class action case on behalf of rate/tax payers for damages due to unnecessary government expenditures. Or just have you declared a vexatious litigant.
You need to get some real exercise instead of lugging goal posts - the taxpayers have wasted too much money already paying damages for frivolous damages claims. No doubt you'd argue the case for laws against sharp corners on furniture and bad weather.
They weren't working for rewards. TFA says they were deprived of water until forced to cooperate.
I can totally understand animal experimentation for medical advancement (live saved > lives lost). I can even understand killing rats as pest control (those rats in particular need to leave).
THIS, however, was purposely acquiring rats in order to perform this test, in which they were indeed threatened with death lest they perform. Disgusting.
Possibly poor science? I didn't understand the published paper but it seemed like the connected dehydrated rats performed some tasks better than unconnected dehydrated rats... If so I don't know what it proves - being tethered to wires in your head increases adrenaline?
Much of the claimed results were very, um, beyond my understanding my admittedly very (very) basic understanding of neurology - seems to need some fairly advanced knowledge of neural processing. Like how to "pipe" image processing from one brain to another. Big money in that. I'm surprised that is not the break-through.
Consider the horn's magical qualities are all bullshit, the people buying horns will be convinced that lab grown horn is not magical like the real thing. All sold horns will now have video evidence of the rhino being killed and the video will show markings on the horns to prove it's that horn.
Yeah that would work. "See in the video where we paint the number on the horn - that proves this horn is real, now give me $100000".
I can see that working with the sort of people that have that kind of money to throw around. Though there may be one or maybe two corner cases where those sort of people might not run to lawyers if they think they got ripped off. Keeping customers happy might be tricky when you peddle high-priced woo.
What will happen is this will simply create a submarket for 'real' horn poachers that establish their 'confirmed kill', perhaps via video.
I don't think you thought that through, then again maybe you believe everything you see on Youtube and television. Even if the latter is true it doesn't mean that those who can pay for independent DNA testing of a product purportedly Black Rhino horn are going to require the same (low) level of evidence required to believe an old video is fact (some correlation with the ability to pay perhaps?). Maybe someone will fake a video and sell it over and over again. How the hell do you prove the video is real and that the product is in anyway connected anyway? An affidavit? Youtuber testimonies? Maybe they'll just crowd-fund a resurrection of extinct Black Rhino from DNA under the cover of a charity to write off the tax - and shave off bits of horn (they do grow back). Maybe they already secretly breed Black Rhino to harvest horn scrapings for their own use? Maybe they are the people who control the trade, and they'll just move to another rare animal product and falsify miracle products so they can jack up the price based on scarcity.
We need to frame hacking as a part of Rape Culture. Then everyone even slightly involved can be demonized, and hacking will go from beign "cool" to being a source of shaming.
Or, we could just be sensible. It's always an option - instead of blindly following you into the quagmires of stupid.
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
Curious - do you have a reference to something that shows the AFP, or ASIO have been using that software in breach of the law? I'm no fan of the police state - nor of hoods and hoodies.
I note that the NSW Police was a user of Finn Fisher - but in that case also I've seen no evidence they misused it.
It's an idea. The some what artificial shortage of available domain names also needs to be addressed. Too many manage to either blatantly flaunt the rules on domain name squatting, or skirt the edges. Enforcing and tightening those rules will likely cause more out-cry than the current proposed changes. Most of which are based on incorrect interpretation of the changes - or defence of shonky business practices.
In my experience the big three are ones that demonstrate that you not only "know your stuff", but can actually apply it - and they are well thought of in the relevant areas of industry.
In no particular order:-
LPI
Red Hat
Cisco
All are fairly cheap if you only sit the examinations (less than a weeks wages for the entry level positions they qualify people for)
There may be others (that are good value and in high-demand) - I just can't think of any off-hand.
Standing uses more energy during the day. More muscles are moving standing than sitting. But you are right, movement is key. There are two things that help movement: foam mats like 'extreme standing mat's that are essentially 2-3 inches of spongy foam that you constantly sway on, trying to find balance, and for sitting, those big blow up rubber balls you can sit on. Again, keeps your body in constant motion, because your body must provide the strength to balance, not the chair.
I agree with all your points but... it's a job not a gym. I would need to think about whether those solutions don't come with risks that outweigh the possible benefits (It sounds good, but I'd need to check the facts - no disrespect intended). Interesting ideas.
If people lie on a couch or a bed, or sit in a chair, all the time they're not at work I can see why they may need posture training and a bit of a work out while they're at work. And I'm not trying to dodge responsibility but if the only time someone gets to exercise is at work they should consider choosing a job that doesn't involve spending most of your time at a keyboard. Not hugely different to expect schools to teach all of a child's social skills.
The environment should be as minimally physically and mentally detrimental as possible - that's in the best interests of a self-enlightened employer. Going beyond that is tricky, but may not be impossible in some situations (lunch time bike rides and in-house gyms come with attendant costs and risks) - but will always incur some cost, which is money that employees won't see. I'll have to think about that for quite a bit.
They sure do. Some drop "the" as part of the colloquial vernacular - but most anywhere in Texas I hear directions to drive "up the road/highway"
Roadworks should make an interesting challenge for automated driving.
And there was a major incident a few months ago when an over-height semi truck went under a bridge and pulled out a concrete beam behind it. (The beam was for a new bridge that was still being built, so it wasn't tied in yet.)
We get similar stupid. Trucks jammed under the bridge height warning signs, people suffering head injuries by height warning signs in the on-ramps to multi-story parking because a passenger gets out and tries to swing the warning out of the way so an over height vehicle can enter. We also get stupid by design. There's a four-lane bridge near me that feeds onto a major intersection. Some genius decided that the best way to stop drivers switching lanes near the intersection was to build a low, narrow, concrete wall between them. You can't see it from your vehicle and it doesn't stop people from trying to swap lanes. It just blocks traffic whenever a car or truck tries and wins up stuck with an axle straddling the wall. Those stuck vehicles are a regular event (sigh).
Back to driverless cars - I was amused to read that one of the "possible" benefits (according to a Texan journalist, who doesn't have a monopoly on dumb) is "Do you ever think that the seeing Austin’s bat colony on the Congress Bridge would be infinitely more fun if you didn’t have to also smell the bats? In theory, one day you could be able to drive by from the smell-sealed safety of your self-driving car.". I haven't looked to see where it's proposed that self-driving cars will carry their own air supply.
So far, all i've heard is here but you've got a point about Texas being resistant to change. Ironically, Austin (the people who live there, not the government) seems to be one of the more flexible parts of the state, that may be why they chose there first.
I don't want make it sound like Texas is the most resistant (or the most vehement in their resistance) of states - I can think of others (and I reside in Australia). East Texas is quite different from West Texas, landscape, weather, and the nature of people - but the differences in attitudes is not uniformly so. From an outsiders perspective people in Dallas (many that I meet weren't born there) don't seem much different from Austin - but the government sure is. Politics in Dallas doesn't seem to have changed much since the 50s - so I'd still be interested in hearing what the "popular" radio and television self-appointed spokespeople have to say about Google's self-driving car. Texas, especially Dallas seems to represent the oil industry - and what happens with cars and trucks if auto-driving vehicles become widespread shouldn't affect their bottom-line much (or just improve it if it reduces the cost of road transportation). But car driving is a very emotional (and historically short) tradition. Much more so than train driving, and the introduction of driver-free trains caused a bit of a storm when introduced in the 60s.(or earlier?)
Reactions here in Australia are mostly "won't work" or "it'll mean doom to carriage industry and mass unemployment" (along with the predictable "it's just part of the conspiracy to invade your privacy by publishing street names". I could easily imagine the return of truck blockades if drive-less trucks looked to become a reality here.
Considering that the book depository that you're thinking of is about 200 miles away, and in Dallas, I think they're safe.....
Yes (I've been there, didn't get to look out the window). I was idly thinking more that Dallas has a history of hostility towards change (Kennedy was jeered, spat on, and abused when he first visited - by people in furs and suits) and is just up the road - and maybe that's part of the reasoning behind the the testing in Texas. i.e. if the reception isn't too hostile in Texas it maybe safe to test and deploy elsewhere.
It was idle speculation that they'd drive north (the I-35?) and test the reception - cautiously. Probably roads are a big factor (though there are plenty of other states with similar roads). There could be plenty of other factors I haven't considered.
It'd be interesting to hear what the Texan radio preachers (representing industry) have to say about it.
This hasn't stopped politicians so far. You can go on line and find video of damn near any one of them claiming to fully support an idea and then in a different campaign claiming that same idea will be the end of civilization as we know it and (s)he would never support such a thing.
Yeah - much of what The Washington Post proposes only works if people are willing to: test their own beliefs; do the research; analyse what they read; can find the facts in the first place (like if, maybe - in an alternate future, Google, and maybe one day other search engines, can be forced to change recorded history).
I don't dispute it's possible, but likely is another thing.
As for software driven micro-facial expression used to recognise liars. I suspect it won't catch those that believe the lie (and bullshit is trickily nuanced thing). A 17.5% failure to detect "lies" could be a worry - depending on where the technology is deployed. I imagine that even with that failure rate it'd be damn handy at airports.
...that air gaps the network with a laser to the ethernet cable, and attempts to kill anyone who approaches the network with a USB stick, but simply falls down the stairs instead, twitching.
You wasted your money investing in that venture.
It must hurt to lose a lucrative defence contract to a can of floor wax and a $2 sign that says "Do not run".
When did you finally crack that deep cover genius? Now Defence Contracting will have to change the name 'cause you've spoiled it all. You brave whistle-blower you.
I remember back in the late '90s (when I was playing junior football with Moses) when the knee-jerk industry reaction to malware was to stop funding any sort of "active" defence systems development. True the old ping of death doesn't work anymore (it was a fun anti-cracker defence until the ISP put an end to it - a bit like burglars suing when they slip on your shiny floor and hurt themselves). I can think of a few interesting alternatives though, but I might just stick with the standard re-direct to an interesting picture for the time being given our silly "cyber-crime" laws.
Intel paid $7.68 billion for McAfee. While their consumer products are notoriously crappy they do actually have some cred for their business software. Most of their business is providing services to companies such as email archival, spam protection and anti-virus. Software as a Service as they call it, or running an external mail server as the rest of us would say. They make high end encryption products too, that have all the various certifications needed for government work.
Thanks - that I would've moderated as informative (but I've already posted in this story, sorry).
It's still not really clear what Intel hoped to gain by buying McAfee... Did they want in to those markets, or were they hoping to add new security features to their CPUs?
Yeah - it seems weird, but I'm entirely ignorant of what other investments Intel has. I could jest that they bought McAfee as a public service - with plans to keep the crappy stuff they push off the market. (actually, I just did. Badly).
I'd forgotten about the PGP side of McAfee - Intel® AES-NI??
Slashdot Mirror
I banned Powerpoint presentations. Saves huge amounts of time, and server space. I don't have figures to support it, but I strongly believe it raises moral and stops a decline in general intelligence.
I note that the NSW Police was a user of Finn Fisher - but in that case also I've seen no evidence they misused it.
Of course you haven't... until the Hacking Team breach, you didn't know they were using it at all, am I right?
With no transparency comes no accountability.
Human nature is predictable. If you want to give me primae facia evidence that they aren't abusing it, then show me the warrants they've obtained for the use of the product.
You make the (spurious) claim - it's incumbent on you to provide the evidence, don't you think?
Your rant is misplaced - you want the Youtuber comments section. And your logic schema is missing the elements required for a sane person to reach the claimed conclusion you try and pass as fact. Even if you are only 16 you still are woefully immature.
The NSW Police do have warrants that would enable them to use Finn Fisher, they also did not buy the licenses from hidden slush funds (which is kind of telling). The absence of proof they don't misuse surveillance is not proof that they do. Nor is it proof that any misuse is of the sort of scale you imply with your 4chan-style rants.
Your wilful failure to extrapolate is the reason why people burnt witches, and will do so again. Thanks for lowering the standard.
Saying that nobody misused it whatsoever is like Russia claiming they don't have any handicap or gay people... just simply ridiculous.
See - now you're just being stupid (and demonstrating your ignorance about Russia). The same deranged argument and damaged logic "proves" the existence of shape-shifting lizard people that run the world. Hopefully your mum keeps the pitchfork and matches safely locked away.
I am sure they could just enact some civil immunity law if there isnt one already. A friend of mine got t-boned by a school bus (no children aboard at the time) making an illegal left turn. Even though the police at the scene ruled the accident to be entirely the fault of the bus driver there was nothing she could do. Her insurance company had to pay the entire claim and she was stuck with the deductible. Could not sue for any damages etc.
Ouch!. My instinct would be to blame the insurance company - at the very least they may not have provided a product fit for intended use (but I'm not particularly litigious or a lawyer).
I guess that's a big part of the issue - the party that makes the decisions on when roads are unsustainable to maintain is the same party that passes the laws.
The same as the USA, Australia has many old mining towns that are now abandoned (and a currently contentious one where a town build for asbestos mining is forcibly being closed and some residents refuse to leave). Since it's not economically feasible to maintain the roads or the towns, they're either closed off (costs a sign and a little work with a bulldozer to dig a trench and make a barrier mound with the spoils). The closure probably falls under the last costs for maintenance. I'm pretty sure some of the covered bridges in Southern USA come under the same category. Sure there may be costs born by the taxpayer when people hurt themselves using them - as there is when they have accidents on their own property which the government is not obligated to provide maintenance.
We have a ridiculous situation where playgrounds are downgraded because of the insurance costs due to damages claims by people who hurt themselves on swings and slides - which is an area where maybe the government should pass immunity laws. In the end I suspect it's a simple issue of costs - taxpayers often have bigger mouths than wallets, and payout decisions made by juries don't help things.
When the revolution comes we're gonna need a longer wall for the lawyers.
The cost is not zero.[...] You'll be flung off of your bike, and you'll end up face first on the crumbling remains of the sidewalk.[...]"
Which is different from falling off your bike while riding across a paddock how? That an ambulance chasing low-life law firm might want you to pursue damages? Pursue your imaginary claim if you like - but beware that Holdem, Scoldem and Buggerem don't take you to court in a class action case on behalf of rate/tax payers for damages due to unnecessary government expenditures. Or just have you declared a vexatious litigant.
You need to get some real exercise instead of lugging goal posts - the taxpayers have wasted too much money already paying damages for frivolous damages claims. No doubt you'd argue the case for laws against sharp corners on furniture and bad weather.
They weren't working for rewards. TFA says they were deprived of water until forced to cooperate. I can totally understand animal experimentation for medical advancement (live saved > lives lost). I can even understand killing rats as pest control (those rats in particular need to leave). THIS, however, was purposely acquiring rats in order to perform this test, in which they were indeed threatened with death lest they perform. Disgusting.
Possibly poor science? I didn't understand the published paper but it seemed like the connected dehydrated rats performed some tasks better than unconnected dehydrated rats... If so I don't know what it proves - being tethered to wires in your head increases adrenaline?
Much of the claimed results were very, um, beyond my understanding my admittedly very (very) basic understanding of neurology - seems to need some fairly advanced knowledge of neural processing. Like how to "pipe" image processing from one brain to another. Big money in that. I'm surprised that is not the break-through.
Why stop at only four? 6 billion minds, all acting as one.
A giant King rat?
It may have real effects - and it retails for about the same price. Ophiocordyceps sinensis
Consider the horn's magical qualities are all bullshit, the people buying horns will be convinced that lab grown horn is not magical like the real thing. All sold horns will now have video evidence of the rhino being killed and the video will show markings on the horns to prove it's that horn.
Yeah that would work. "See in the video where we paint the number on the horn - that proves this horn is real, now give me $100000".
I can see that working with the sort of people that have that kind of money to throw around. Though there may be one or maybe two corner cases where those sort of people might not run to lawyers if they think they got ripped off. Keeping customers happy might be tricky when you peddle high-priced woo.
If I can't see or observe the effect, why is it worth spending a lot of money on in the first place?
Because value is made of the same pixie dust as magical cures?
What will happen is this will simply create a submarket for 'real' horn poachers that establish their 'confirmed kill', perhaps via video.
I don't think you thought that through, then again maybe you believe everything you see on Youtube and television. Even if the latter is true it doesn't mean that those who can pay for independent DNA testing of a product purportedly Black Rhino horn are going to require the same (low) level of evidence required to believe an old video is fact (some correlation with the ability to pay perhaps?). Maybe someone will fake a video and sell it over and over again.
How the hell do you prove the video is real and that the product is in anyway connected anyway? An affidavit? Youtuber testimonies?
Maybe they'll just crowd-fund a resurrection of extinct Black Rhino from DNA under the cover of a charity to write off the tax - and shave off bits of horn (they do grow back). Maybe they already secretly breed Black Rhino to harvest horn scrapings for their own use? Maybe they are the people who control the trade, and they'll just move to another rare animal product and falsify miracle products so they can jack up the price based on scarcity.
We could do maybes all day. Maybe.
We need to frame hacking as a part of Rape Culture. Then everyone even slightly involved can be demonized, and hacking will go from beign "cool" to being a source of shaming.
Or, we could just be sensible. It's always an option - instead of blindly following you into the quagmires of stupid.
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
Curious - do you have a reference to something that shows the AFP, or ASIO have been using that software in breach of the law? I'm no fan of the police state - nor of hoods and hoodies.
I note that the NSW Police was a user of Finn Fisher - but in that case also I've seen no evidence they misused it.
maybe the ".com" = US should shift to ".us" = US?
It's an idea. The some what artificial shortage of available domain names also needs to be addressed. Too many manage to either blatantly flaunt the rules on domain name squatting, or skirt the edges. Enforcing and tightening those rules will likely cause more out-cry than the current proposed changes. Most of which are based on incorrect interpretation of the changes - or defence of shonky business practices.
In my experience the big three are ones that demonstrate that you not only "know your stuff", but can actually apply it - and they are well thought of in the relevant areas of industry.
In no particular order:-
All are fairly cheap if you only sit the examinations (less than a weeks wages for the entry level positions they qualify people for)
There may be others (that are good value and in high-demand) - I just can't think of any off-hand.
Standing uses more energy during the day. More muscles are moving standing than sitting. But you are right, movement is key. There are two things that help movement: foam mats like 'extreme standing mat's that are essentially 2-3 inches of spongy foam that you constantly sway on, trying to find balance, and for sitting, those big blow up rubber balls you can sit on. Again, keeps your body in constant motion, because your body must provide the strength to balance, not the chair.
I agree with all your points but... it's a job not a gym. I would need to think about whether those solutions don't come with risks that outweigh the possible benefits (It sounds good, but I'd need to check the facts - no disrespect intended). Interesting ideas.
If people lie on a couch or a bed, or sit in a chair, all the time they're not at work I can see why they may need posture training and a bit of a work out while they're at work. And I'm not trying to dodge responsibility but if the only time someone gets to exercise is at work they should consider choosing a job that doesn't involve spending most of your time at a keyboard. Not hugely different to expect schools to teach all of a child's social skills.
The environment should be as minimally physically and mentally detrimental as possible - that's in the best interests of a self-enlightened employer. Going beyond that is tricky, but may not be impossible in some situations (lunch time bike rides and in-house gyms come with attendant costs and risks) - but will always incur some cost, which is money that employees won't see. I'll have to think about that for quite a bit.
I-35 (Texans don't use "the" with highway names)
They sure do. Some drop "the" as part of the colloquial vernacular - but most anywhere in Texas I hear directions to drive "up the road/highway"
Roadworks should make an interesting challenge for automated driving.
And there was a major incident a few months ago when an over-height semi truck went under a bridge and pulled out a concrete beam behind it. (The beam was for a new bridge that was still being built, so it wasn't tied in yet.)
We get similar stupid. Trucks jammed under the bridge height warning signs, people suffering head injuries by height warning signs in the on-ramps to multi-story parking because a passenger gets out and tries to swing the warning out of the way so an over height vehicle can enter. We also get stupid by design. There's a four-lane bridge near me that feeds onto a major intersection. Some genius decided that the best way to stop drivers switching lanes near the intersection was to build a low, narrow, concrete wall between them. You can't see it from your vehicle and it doesn't stop people from trying to swap lanes. It just blocks traffic whenever a car or truck tries and wins up stuck with an axle straddling the wall. Those stuck vehicles are a regular event (sigh).
Back to driverless cars - I was amused to read that one of the "possible" benefits (according to a Texan journalist, who doesn't have a monopoly on dumb) is "Do you ever think that the seeing Austin’s bat colony on the Congress Bridge would be infinitely more fun if you didn’t have to also smell the bats? In theory, one day you could be able to drive by from the smell-sealed safety of your self-driving car.". I haven't looked to see where it's proposed that self-driving cars will carry their own air supply.
So far, all i've heard is here but you've got a point about Texas being resistant to change. Ironically, Austin (the people who live there, not the government) seems to be one of the more flexible parts of the state, that may be why they chose there first.
I don't want make it sound like Texas is the most resistant (or the most vehement in their resistance) of states - I can think of others (and I reside in Australia). East Texas is quite different from West Texas, landscape, weather, and the nature of people - but the differences in attitudes is not uniformly so. From an outsiders perspective people in Dallas (many that I meet weren't born there) don't seem much different from Austin - but the government sure is. Politics in Dallas doesn't seem to have changed much since the 50s - so I'd still be interested in hearing what the "popular" radio and television self-appointed spokespeople have to say about Google's self-driving car. Texas, especially Dallas seems to represent the oil industry - and what happens with cars and trucks if auto-driving vehicles become widespread shouldn't affect their bottom-line much (or just improve it if it reduces the cost of road transportation). But car driving is a very emotional (and historically short) tradition. Much more so than train driving, and the introduction of driver-free trains caused a bit of a storm when introduced in the 60s.(or earlier?)
Reactions here in Australia are mostly "won't work" or "it'll mean doom to carriage industry and mass unemployment" (along with the predictable "it's just part of the conspiracy to invade your privacy by publishing street names". I could easily imagine the return of truck blockades if drive-less trucks looked to become a reality here.
Interesting times we live in.
My (somewhat informed, but could still be wrong) guess as to what Intel was thinking at the time (remembering that this was about 5 years ago):
[...]
Interesting.
By the way, McAfee does NOT own PGP. They'd spun it back out, and it got re-acquired by Symantec.
My mistake. (thanks).
Considering that the book depository that you're thinking of is about 200 miles away, and in Dallas, I think they're safe.....
Yes (I've been there, didn't get to look out the window). I was idly thinking more that Dallas has a history of hostility towards change (Kennedy was jeered, spat on, and abused when he first visited - by people in furs and suits) and is just up the road - and maybe that's part of the reasoning behind the the testing in Texas. i.e. if the reception isn't too hostile in Texas it maybe safe to test and deploy elsewhere.
It was idle speculation that they'd drive north (the I-35?) and test the reception - cautiously. Probably roads are a big factor (though there are plenty of other states with similar roads). There could be plenty of other factors I haven't considered.
It'd be interesting to hear what the Texan radio preachers (representing industry) have to say about it.
of the book repository.
This hasn't stopped politicians so far. You can go on line and find video of damn near any one of them claiming to fully support an idea and then in a different campaign claiming that same idea will be the end of civilization as we know it and (s)he would never support such a thing.
Yeah - much of what The Washington Post proposes only works if people are willing to: test their own beliefs; do the research; analyse what they read; can find the facts in the first place (like if, maybe - in an alternate future, Google, and maybe one day other search engines, can be forced to change recorded history).
I don't dispute it's possible, but likely is another thing.
As for software driven micro-facial expression used to recognise liars. I suspect it won't catch those that believe the lie (and bullshit is trickily nuanced thing). A 17.5% failure to detect "lies" could be a worry - depending on where the technology is deployed. I imagine that even with that failure rate it'd be damn handy at airports.
...that air gaps the network with a laser to the ethernet cable, and attempts to kill anyone who approaches the network with a USB stick, but simply falls down the stairs instead, twitching.
You wasted your money investing in that venture.
It must hurt to lose a lucrative defence contract to a can of floor wax and a $2 sign that says "Do not run".
When did you finally crack that deep cover genius? Now Defence Contracting will have to change the name 'cause you've spoiled it all. You brave whistle-blower you.
I remember back in the late '90s (when I was playing junior football with Moses) when the knee-jerk industry reaction to malware was to stop funding any sort of "active" defence systems development. True the old ping of death doesn't work anymore (it was a fun anti-cracker defence until the ISP put an end to it - a bit like burglars suing when they slip on your shiny floor and hurt themselves). I can think of a few interesting alternatives though, but I might just stick with the standard re-direct to an interesting picture for the time being given our silly "cyber-crime" laws.
Someone mod that up as informative. Please?
Intel paid $7.68 billion for McAfee. While their consumer products are notoriously crappy they do actually have some cred for their business software. Most of their business is providing services to companies such as email archival, spam protection and anti-virus. Software as a Service as they call it, or running an external mail server as the rest of us would say. They make high end encryption products too, that have all the various certifications needed for government work.
Thanks - that I would've moderated as informative (but I've already posted in this story, sorry).
It's still not really clear what Intel hoped to gain by buying McAfee... Did they want in to those markets, or were they hoping to add new security features to their CPUs?
Yeah - it seems weird, but I'm entirely ignorant of what other investments Intel has. I could jest that they bought McAfee as a public service - with plans to keep the crappy stuff they push off the market. (actually, I just did. Badly).
I'd forgotten about the PGP side of McAfee - Intel® AES-NI??