Good info. I would say it doesn't seem like much of a stretch for laptop batteries to become required to carry-on. Looking around it appears that just lowering that 100Wh limit for attached checked batteries to 50Wh would cause some of the bigger ones to be required to be carried on.
It appears that it is "worse" for pre-shared keys (attacker can do more nasty), but there are still problems for the non-pre-shared-key cases. Thanks for the links. Funny that it was actually already fixed in more recent versions of wpa_supplicant, it just wasn't known that it was security-critical.
I think it was worse than that. Not only could it recover satellites, it could do it in a single orbit. That is incredible but pretty much unrelated to the civilian mission. One could argue that the cost burden of the capabilities insisted upon by the air force is what killed the US manned spaceflight program. Just think if the US had simply continued with conventional heavy-lift and safe manned boosters, or just given up on the shuttle program earlier and switched back. It was pretty clear by 1988 that the shuttle was a boondoggle death-trap.
Well if there are guns in the house and she doesn't know who has access to them, that's kind of a problem. I'm sure other questions included "are you eating your vegetables" and "how many times a day do you brush your teeth". These are usually questions for which the answer itself doesn't actually matter in some sense (people often lie), they're intended to make the patient think about what the answer SHOULD be and maybe give the doctor an idea of how attentive the person is to basic health and safety practices. I would argue that this specific question represents one of the problems with American gun culture in some circles, i.e. access to firearms is not handled appropriately. And don't give the song and dance about kitchen knives being dangerous, it's pretty tough to accidentally kill someone with a kitchen knife, not so hard with a gun. With all the hype around mass shootings, inappropriate access to guns and the resulting accidents or otherwise avoidable incidents kill a lot more people. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to set some basic regulations, like is done for, say, fire alarms, without people like you denouncing it as a conspiracy to take away your guns.
Um, that doesn't make them innocent, that makes them guilty but coerced. Innocent would be if the Russian spies were sniffing through their telemetry without them knowing, but that still means they are just as much of a security hole. I will admit that I didn't know that anti-virus software sent the user's files off-site for "inspection" if they were "suspicious". That is ridiculously insecure for the user's private data.
Pick a movie from last year. Is available streaming on netflix? probably not. Is available by DVD? yes.
The movie studios can prevent streaming. They can't prevent renting of a physical medium, so everything you can buy at least CAN be available by DVD. Until some sort of compulsory licensing appears for streaming, it will stay that way.
Actually it can be stolen. If the somebody in your patent example can convince a court that they actually owned the patent and not you, they will have successfully stolen it because you will no longer be allowed to make it without their permission. This is why using the word "steal" in these contexts is a problem. "Steal" does have a meaning that is far worse. Selling unauthorized copies of a book is totally different from stealing the rights to sell a book (and prevent the original author from doing so).
It is available to the public. Just not for free, and nowadays even that is often only limited to the first year. I expect a lot of stuff in the ACS journals is likely at least partially privately funded. I am typically suspicious nowadays of people saying "publicly funded research should be open" because they often have no interest in open science, they just want to use the vagueness in the definition of "open" as a weapon to beat down scientists. Publishing work in a journal is making it available. Not making it available would be keeping it secret. You can complain about the funding model of journals and claim that they should be far less expensive now than they used to be, but them being somewhat expensive does not make their contents secret.
You will never actually have 100% of your attention devoted to a task full-time. There are known good ways to manage this sort of thing, but they require actual effort at system design, training, and validation, not just doing things ad-hoc and hoping for the best. That the "new" things mentioned in the article weren't already standard is rather sad.
As another poster says, what's needed is signing (authenticity verification) not encryption. I agree that this would be pretty difficult for devices that can't update, but it seems like it would be possible to periodically publish a public key that allows some sort of authenticity check for systems that can receive regular updates to this key. Though even then I'm unsure if one could defend against re-transmission attacks that do not alter the signals, just re-transmit certain ones with a carefully chosen delay. But it seems like it would be possible to build a receiver that could detect attacks without signing. If the signal is too strong for the reported location of the satellite, then something is very wrong. Since an attacker can't override a signal with a similar strength signal, this would make it possible to jam but not spoof. Though it may be that the signal strength cannot be computed with this much accuracy, or possibly not without a lot of information (weather) and computing power.
Um, being governed by a remote power is pretty bad for local development. While you mention it, you don't seem to realize that "colony" status is typically hugely economically stifling because the people managing the government at the top level have NO interest in local issues because they have no ties to the locality. While this FCC story is a red herring, there are many instances where Puerto Rico is simply ignored by the people in charge on the mainland. How long did it take to just allow foreign supplies to be delivered during a major natural disaster? Imagine how things work when there is no disaster.
[operation of these] impermissibly circumvents our commercial AM filing window and competitive bidding processes. (from your quote) -- The story is pretty close to the level of fake news. It conflates boosters for commercial stations (which these were never supposed to be) with boosters for radio science (what these were permitted as) in order to give a false impression of the situation. There is a legal way to have boosters, but this station was intentionally avoiding that process, almost certainly in order to avoid the bidding. The headline should be "FFC blocked station's attempt to cheat on regulations." If there is any blame here it is on the station not the FCC.
Nice strawman. No, it is against the ToS to create and use fraudulent spam accounts. It may also be illegal to spend (or accept) money in particular ways related to politics, especially without disclosure or while intentionally attempting to obscure or mis-attribute the source. For example, I believe being paid to shill (which typically involves some deceptive aka fraudulent actions) in US national politics by a foreign government has been illegal for quite some time, and twitter has an obligation to do their best to prevent their system from being (ab)used for this illegal activity.
Finally, I don't think the US has a bone with the Russian people, just the current Russian dictator and the bad-faith actions of his security and propaganda apparatus.
Not AI, since it is actually machine learning. It's really stunning how far the rebranding of machine learning as AI has progressed. Maybe even machine training is more appropriate. AI is just not.
Yes almost every instance of "AI" in the current news should be "trained machine" or "machine learning". Training a machine-implemented neural network is inherently different from writing a program, but it is not "intelligence". If we train a dog to classify chemical signatures in a particular way, we call it a "trained animal" not an "animal intelligence", so if we train a machine to do a particular specialized task we should call it a "trained machine". Just this change would massively clarify all the hype around the current upsurge in the use of trained machines. One remarkable difference between trained machines and trained animals is that in many cases it is possible to copy a trained machine and get another trained machine, i.e. the training does not need to be repeated like it does for an animal. But even that feature is not true of all trained machines.
It seems Google itself is not comfortable with profiting from racist targeting. No force needed. This is just pointing out that it is happening and showing that even Google does feel some shame for selling this kind of targeting. Freedom of speech does not guarantee your right to use a particular advertising service in a particular way. If Google and Facebook want to be the fascists' and the racists' best buddies, they might lose some respect. (Now I agree that respect is largely undeserved, but there is an argument that the data miners really have drunk their cool-aid and think they are helping the world and not driving it mad with the collateral damage of their culture manipulation machines... er marketing technology.)
You have no evidence to back up your claim. It is entirely possible that the overall accident rate will increase because people will start to rely on autonomous driving systems in situations where they are not safe or use them in ways that are unsafe. Many people already drive in surprisingly unsafe ways.
You appear to have a terribly warped view of the role of sight words in reading and more generally of language and reading development. Just because kids of a certain level should have certain sight words does not mean that they never use phonetics. It is actually a completely natural part of reading development to guess at words sometimes instead of sounding them out. Sight words are simply part of how reading works. If you think adults read by sounding out every word you are mistaken. Adults are simply more experienced at recognizing which words are sight words that they know.
If your child is really being taught as you claim, which I find unlikely but possible, you should complain about the professional development of your local teachers, not about the national standards, because they are doing it totally wrong. I have found that sometimes private schools are even worse about this kind of thing because they are even more likely to cater to parents like you who do not know what you are talking about.
And on your last point, a lot of people complain about modern standards when in reality the problem was always there, it's just now the standards are so precise and well-validated that there is no way around acknowledging it. If the kid's weren't learning sight words before, they weren't learning how to read because that is how reading works. And of course kids with parents who "really care" are going to do better. That's basically a tautology. If all other kids are failing then the school system is failing and *always has been*.
What you say is a crazy conspiracy theory. The UAW is in this to protect the existence of unions, which is about free speech and freedom of assembly and association. If Tesla weren't suppressing the union, the local worker's union is typically good enough to keep the UAW cronies out of the picture. Somehow companies don't understand that if they don't like the national unions, the best option is to allow, or even encourage, the locals to organize themselves, not forbid it. But most companies are set up to treat workers like disposable cogs, not individuals that are investing their lives in the company just like the shareholders are investing their capital in it.
Way worse than that -- FB was effectively paying people to generate and spread falsehood in the name of increasing "user engagement". Without any care that that same "engagement" was destroying people's ability to distinguish fact from fiction.
It's far worse than that -- Facebook is the ultimate spam platform constructed to manipulate users with clickbait garbage. Who would have guessed such a thing would screw up social discourse?
Friendica accomplishes most of what you want. You can keep your data on a server that you control or at least that is not working against your best interests. It's "what diaspora was supposed to be". The successor to Friendica, Hubzilla basically does what you just said (policy enforced by encryption keys) but on a broader scale than just social networking. Again, the "always on" aspect is easily solved by having your own server. There is a way to do all this social networking stuff that does not sacrifice the user's privacy, the problem is doing it that way is not as profitable. Facebook, Google, et al are like TV -- the user is the product.
Slashdot Mirror
Good info. I would say it doesn't seem like much of a stretch for laptop batteries to become required to carry-on. Looking around it appears that just lowering that 100Wh limit for attached checked batteries to 50Wh would cause some of the bigger ones to be required to be carried on.
From my reading it seems like not all scenarios require a MITM.
It appears that it is "worse" for pre-shared keys (attacker can do more nasty), but there are still problems for the non-pre-shared-key cases. Thanks for the links. Funny that it was actually already fixed in more recent versions of wpa_supplicant, it just wasn't known that it was security-critical.
I think it was worse than that. Not only could it recover satellites, it could do it in a single orbit. That is incredible but pretty much unrelated to the civilian mission. One could argue that the cost burden of the capabilities insisted upon by the air force is what killed the US manned spaceflight program. Just think if the US had simply continued with conventional heavy-lift and safe manned boosters, or just given up on the shuttle program earlier and switched back. It was pretty clear by 1988 that the shuttle was a boondoggle death-trap.
Well if there are guns in the house and she doesn't know who has access to them, that's kind of a problem. I'm sure other questions included "are you eating your vegetables" and "how many times a day do you brush your teeth". These are usually questions for which the answer itself doesn't actually matter in some sense (people often lie), they're intended to make the patient think about what the answer SHOULD be and maybe give the doctor an idea of how attentive the person is to basic health and safety practices. I would argue that this specific question represents one of the problems with American gun culture in some circles, i.e. access to firearms is not handled appropriately. And don't give the song and dance about kitchen knives being dangerous, it's pretty tough to accidentally kill someone with a kitchen knife, not so hard with a gun. With all the hype around mass shootings, inappropriate access to guns and the resulting accidents or otherwise avoidable incidents kill a lot more people. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to set some basic regulations, like is done for, say, fire alarms, without people like you denouncing it as a conspiracy to take away your guns.
Um, that doesn't make them innocent, that makes them guilty but coerced. Innocent would be if the Russian spies were sniffing through their telemetry without them knowing, but that still means they are just as much of a security hole. I will admit that I didn't know that anti-virus software sent the user's files off-site for "inspection" if they were "suspicious". That is ridiculously insecure for the user's private data.
Pick a movie from last year. Is available streaming on netflix? probably not. Is available by DVD? yes.
The movie studios can prevent streaming. They can't prevent renting of a physical medium, so everything you can buy at least CAN be available by DVD. Until some sort of compulsory licensing appears for streaming, it will stay that way.
Actually it can be stolen. If the somebody in your patent example can convince a court that they actually owned the patent and not you, they will have successfully stolen it because you will no longer be allowed to make it without their permission. This is why using the word "steal" in these contexts is a problem. "Steal" does have a meaning that is far worse. Selling unauthorized copies of a book is totally different from stealing the rights to sell a book (and prevent the original author from doing so).
It is available to the public. Just not for free, and nowadays even that is often only limited to the first year. I expect a lot of stuff in the ACS journals is likely at least partially privately funded. I am typically suspicious nowadays of people saying "publicly funded research should be open" because they often have no interest in open science, they just want to use the vagueness in the definition of "open" as a weapon to beat down scientists. Publishing work in a journal is making it available. Not making it available would be keeping it secret. You can complain about the funding model of journals and claim that they should be far less expensive now than they used to be, but them being somewhat expensive does not make their contents secret.
You will never actually have 100% of your attention devoted to a task full-time. There are known good ways to manage this sort of thing, but they require actual effort at system design, training, and validation, not just doing things ad-hoc and hoping for the best. That the "new" things mentioned in the article weren't already standard is rather sad.
As another poster says, what's needed is signing (authenticity verification) not encryption. I agree that this would be pretty difficult for devices that can't update, but it seems like it would be possible to periodically publish a public key that allows some sort of authenticity check for systems that can receive regular updates to this key. Though even then I'm unsure if one could defend against re-transmission attacks that do not alter the signals, just re-transmit certain ones with a carefully chosen delay. But it seems like it would be possible to build a receiver that could detect attacks without signing. If the signal is too strong for the reported location of the satellite, then something is very wrong. Since an attacker can't override a signal with a similar strength signal, this would make it possible to jam but not spoof. Though it may be that the signal strength cannot be computed with this much accuracy, or possibly not without a lot of information (weather) and computing power.
Um, being governed by a remote power is pretty bad for local development. While you mention it, you don't seem to realize that "colony" status is typically hugely economically stifling because the people managing the government at the top level have NO interest in local issues because they have no ties to the locality. While this FCC story is a red herring, there are many instances where Puerto Rico is simply ignored by the people in charge on the mainland. How long did it take to just allow foreign supplies to be delivered during a major natural disaster? Imagine how things work when there is no disaster.
[operation of these] impermissibly circumvents our commercial AM filing window and competitive bidding processes. (from your quote) -- The story is pretty close to the level of fake news. It conflates boosters for commercial stations (which these were never supposed to be) with boosters for radio science (what these were permitted as) in order to give a false impression of the situation. There is a legal way to have boosters, but this station was intentionally avoiding that process, almost certainly in order to avoid the bidding. The headline should be "FFC blocked station's attempt to cheat on regulations." If there is any blame here it is on the station not the FCC.
Nice strawman. No, it is against the ToS to create and use fraudulent spam accounts. It may also be illegal to spend (or accept) money in particular ways related to politics, especially without disclosure or while intentionally attempting to obscure or mis-attribute the source. For example, I believe being paid to shill (which typically involves some deceptive aka fraudulent actions) in US national politics by a foreign government has been illegal for quite some time, and twitter has an obligation to do their best to prevent their system from being (ab)used for this illegal activity.
Finally, I don't think the US has a bone with the Russian people, just the current Russian dictator and the bad-faith actions of his security and propaganda apparatus.
Not AI, since it is actually machine learning. It's really stunning how far the rebranding of machine learning as AI has progressed. Maybe even machine training is more appropriate. AI is just not.
Yes almost every instance of "AI" in the current news should be "trained machine" or "machine learning". Training a machine-implemented neural network is inherently different from writing a program, but it is not "intelligence". If we train a dog to classify chemical signatures in a particular way, we call it a "trained animal" not an "animal intelligence", so if we train a machine to do a particular specialized task we should call it a "trained machine". Just this change would massively clarify all the hype around the current upsurge in the use of trained machines. One remarkable difference between trained machines and trained animals is that in many cases it is possible to copy a trained machine and get another trained machine, i.e. the training does not need to be repeated like it does for an animal. But even that feature is not true of all trained machines.
better yet... Miners of The Data, where "The Data" is the personal information of a large fraction of people on the planet.
The Dataminers.
It seems Google itself is not comfortable with profiting from racist targeting. No force needed. This is just pointing out that it is happening and showing that even Google does feel some shame for selling this kind of targeting. Freedom of speech does not guarantee your right to use a particular advertising service in a particular way. If Google and Facebook want to be the fascists' and the racists' best buddies, they might lose some respect. (Now I agree that respect is largely undeserved, but there is an argument that the data miners really have drunk their cool-aid and think they are helping the world and not driving it mad with the collateral damage of their culture manipulation machines... er marketing technology.)
You have no evidence to back up your claim. It is entirely possible that the overall accident rate will increase because people will start to rely on autonomous driving systems in situations where they are not safe or use them in ways that are unsafe. Many people already drive in surprisingly unsafe ways.
You appear to have a terribly warped view of the role of sight words in reading and more generally of language and reading development. Just because kids of a certain level should have certain sight words does not mean that they never use phonetics. It is actually a completely natural part of reading development to guess at words sometimes instead of sounding them out. Sight words are simply part of how reading works. If you think adults read by sounding out every word you are mistaken. Adults are simply more experienced at recognizing which words are sight words that they know.
If your child is really being taught as you claim, which I find unlikely but possible, you should complain about the professional development of your local teachers, not about the national standards, because they are doing it totally wrong. I have found that sometimes private schools are even worse about this kind of thing because they are even more likely to cater to parents like you who do not know what you are talking about.
And on your last point, a lot of people complain about modern standards when in reality the problem was always there, it's just now the standards are so precise and well-validated that there is no way around acknowledging it. If the kid's weren't learning sight words before, they weren't learning how to read because that is how reading works. And of course kids with parents who "really care" are going to do better. That's basically a tautology. If all other kids are failing then the school system is failing and *always has been*.
What you say is a crazy conspiracy theory. The UAW is in this to protect the existence of unions, which is about free speech and freedom of assembly and association. If Tesla weren't suppressing the union, the local worker's union is typically good enough to keep the UAW cronies out of the picture. Somehow companies don't understand that if they don't like the national unions, the best option is to allow, or even encourage, the locals to organize themselves, not forbid it. But most companies are set up to treat workers like disposable cogs, not individuals that are investing their lives in the company just like the shareholders are investing their capital in it.
Way worse than that -- FB was effectively paying people to generate and spread falsehood in the name of increasing "user engagement". Without any care that that same "engagement" was destroying people's ability to distinguish fact from fiction.
It's far worse than that -- Facebook is the ultimate spam platform constructed to manipulate users with clickbait garbage. Who would have guessed such a thing would screw up social discourse?
Friendica accomplishes most of what you want. You can keep your data on a server that you control or at least that is not working against your best interests. It's "what diaspora was supposed to be". The successor to Friendica, Hubzilla basically does what you just said (policy enforced by encryption keys) but on a broader scale than just social networking. Again, the "always on" aspect is easily solved by having your own server. There is a way to do all this social networking stuff that does not sacrifice the user's privacy, the problem is doing it that way is not as profitable. Facebook, Google, et al are like TV -- the user is the product.