I find the outrage on behalf of the poor users hilarious. The actual reality is that people couldn't give a shit what logo comes up when they start their computers. They have never gone out of their way to upgrade, and that won't change in 2020 either. When a computer melts into a small puddle, they'll buy a new one. That one will come with whatever is currently on offer. Nothing more.
No muggings, no gun, just a hamster plodding along on his wheel.
Microsoft per their marketing plan will force as many as they can on to Windows 10.
Err no. Windows 10 sales are now being almost exclusively driven by PC sales. What are MS going to do? Provide a formally EOL OS to users? There's not marketing plan about it, Windows 7 is not provided for new installs, and no sane person would expect it to be.
Maybe PC sales were lower in part because of waiting for and then disappointment with Windows 10.
Unlikely. PC sales have been on an almost linear decline since the iPad was released, or since Intel Core series processors and that horrible "Netbook" craze died. Pick your poison. Either way everyone who needed a computer had a computer and stopped upgrading computers at fast rates. This isn't anything due to Windows, it's been a long time since Windows was a driver of PC upgrades. It's more of a reflection that we are approaching a replacement / maintenance phase of the industry.
Mine hasn't. You see, in Windows 7, you can choose which updates you install...
Cool story. The reality however is that 99.99% of non-corporate Windows 7 installs out there are either malware infested cesspools thanks to updates being completely disabled, or have the telemetry installed.
I've never met a normal user who scrutinises updates on a per KB number level.
What are we really using more of that the Earth produces?
A metric fuckton of resources. Wood, coal, oil, gas, just to name a few. Not all resources are finite though, some exist in a closed loop: water (fresh drinking water not withstanding, water itself is infinitely cycled).
Some of these resources exist in a closed loop, but the control scheme has such a low gain with such unfathomably long timescales that the materials are effectively not being regenerated at all.
Every year your dad buys 365 twinkies. You are eating two twinkies per day. On July 2nd of July you have consumed more twinkies than your father put in the cupboard.
But here's the thing. You father has been putting twinkies in that cupboard for the past 50 years. Yet you only discovered the wonders of smoking weed and getting the munchies a few years ago. Now the supply of twinkies is going down faster than the replacement rate and one day when you're high as a kite you're going to be super pissed when you find the cupboard empty.
You can't say it was well-understood to be a giant non-event when it is currently a gigantic event
Except it isn't a giant event. Pick your colloquialism: storm in a teacup, mountain out of a molehill, or just call it what it is: media driven absurdity and fear about a security risk that is not well understood by the media.
To wit: Not every chipmaker chose to do it the irresponsible way that was highly likely to cause problems. AMD didn't, and the rest is just bullshit fucking excuses.
And you can't say "not every". That is being intentionally dishonest when the actual answer was: 1. One chip maker chose not to do this. IBM, ARM, Sun (now Oracle) all followed Intel's path in some of their products.
who make bullshit excuses
Keep trying mate, you'll understand the issue one day.
That's a good analysis but I'm not sure it would necessarily pan out that way due to the current social situation.
You can't normalize what is already normalized. There are a good chunk of young people who have lived now their entire lives with the censorship. They know it too. Last time I was in China for longer than a quick holiday I got a local SIM, local internet connection, and on my first day I just out aloud in the office "damn what do you use instead of Google maps?" Expecting a list of alternative map services I instead was recommend software to bypass the censorship. It is completely normalised in China. People accept the censorship and work around it when they have to. There's no urgency to change anything, no urgency to overthrow any government, just living happily with the status quo.
I ended up downloading a program from the app store that was recommended called "Break the Wall". One of my american colleges told me it worked well and was recommended to her by the phone shop which sold her the SIM card.
Once Google starts making money in China, China will have leverage over Google by threatening to restrict Google in China
What the hell are you talking about. China already has leverage over Google and always has. It's why they pulled their services out of the country in the first place.
This means that China will be able to insist that certain terms and pages do not appear anywhere, or at least get very low ranking.
See my original comment, you have just proposed an imperfect censorship tool and we are now applying it to a different company with different operations and logarithms. When you pour water into a sieve some goes through. You pour water into two sieves, even more goes through.
Recall the way that China got all airlines to drop the term Tiawan. In the USA, you will not see it.
A stupid comparison given that the USA is aligned with most of the western world in their recognition of a one China policy which does not formally recognise nor have diplomatic relations with the Republic Of China. You may also note that requirement was to not recognise Taiwan as China insists the ROC is part of the PRC. Instead what was achieved is that most airlines simply removed country names cleverly skirting the entire issue, another good example of weak censorship not achieving its complete goal.
Step 1: Spend bazillions on a company that has not made profit. Step 2: Demand magic profit. Step 3: ??? Step 4: Divestment, the idea of profiting to the tune of the value of these unicorns is utterly absurd.
It was. Risk is likelihood and consequence. And at the time the likelihood was deemed to be never and the consequence was well understood for this giant non-event that it is.
Now with your hindsight the likelihood has changed. Claiming they knew this back then is just stupid. The earliest documentation of side channel attacks were theorised in 1995 and remained a theory for over 2 decades. The practical security impacts of it still remain theoretical for most computing workloads where you don't hand complete control to a nefarious actor for an extended period of time anyway.
Intel made the right call back then. As they did now, as did Linux Torvalds when he provided a method to bypass the Linux security patch, as did Microsoft when they provided a method to bypass their security patch, as did Theo when he provided a method to bypass the BSD security patches.
Everyone except for a few silly people on Slashdot realise that performance trumps security against this attack in a very wide number of cases precisely because the risk is so incredibly low.
Now please get of the internet, there are scary malware looking packets out there. It's really not safe here.
Having a censored Google in China is better than having no Google in China. Censorship is not perfect. Results and information slips through the cracks constantly. By adding a second choice there's a second gap for censored content to slip through. A big foreign owned gap that isn't quite as tightly controlled as the state run gaps.
Why? For providing a second source of searching the internet to the Chinese thereby weakening the effects of state run censorship through mistakes and imperfections in the control of an American company?
Nope. Censorship relies on the absolute control of information. Absolute control of information is best achieved through a single source that is under complete control. Adding a second player as a source of information, and one that is ultimately external to the government will result in ever more previously censored content slipping through the cracks.
By launching a censored service in China the result is less censorship and more access to wider material.
Censorship is very imperfect, even if you do ultimately control everything, but even less perfect when you add 3rd parties to the mix.
Give it a rest. Larry and Sergey were richer than God before the first use of the phrase you're misquoting (Don't Be Evil) was ever released, during Google's IPO. That was also the last time that phrase was used publicly by anyone except for tech worshipers applying their own wishful thinking as to the company that Google was.
Secondly there's nothing evil about their actions here. If anything it's quite the opposite. Google is giving the Chinese choice of a second search engine which they currently don't have access to. Censorship being an imperfect tool that it is breaks down the more players are involved. I'm sorry that your idealistic world view of coming into another country and breaking down it's government from the inside isn't panning out quite like you hope, but this is still a net good thing.
It just goes to show "Do No Evil" was complete and utter media theatre. Google will do anything for the almighty dollar!
Two things about your statement:
1) The expansion of choice even if it is regulated choice is a good thing regardless of how you spin it. Censorship is imperfect and gets less perfect the more players are involved. Given the option between one in country source of information, or one in country source of information + an external source of information that has been given guidance on how to provide that information, the latter option will always provide users with more access to previously censored content.
2) Do No Evil never existed. You're probably thinking of "Don't Be Evil" a phrase used by Google once in any formal marketing material, and that was in the IPO documents back in the mid 00s. The phrase was never in their corporate philosophy, never appeared on their website, and only exists in their internal code of conduct. If one thing is clear it's that people's unrealistic wishful thinking of how Google works was just that, wishful thinking.
I understand you are tied to your smartphone, but ticket booths and paper tickets still exist. Give up some of the convenience of booking online
Lol what are you watching, some small local musician no one has ever heard of? In all seriousness though there's a large number of shows these days that never make it to any ticket office. A small group are reserved for registered fan clubs, some for competitions, and the rest will sell out within minutes online. Ticket offices just aren't a thing for many events.
All of that is also beside the point. At no point during the ticket purchase was the app required for this. The app requirement came *after* the ticket was purchased, even by people who've never heard or used the app. Your local office doesn't help you there, thought it would give you the opportunity to vent your disagreement with a person in front of you when they tell you their (IMO) idiotic policy.
Yep, because releasing plans for building a nuclear bomb is totally the same thing as releasing plans for something someone can just hit print on their own (or their friend's) $500 printer.
To be clear, it's a stupid ruling in the face of free speech and given the rest of the gun culture, but not quite as stupid as your comparison.
Interestingly the last HP advert I saw about printers directly talked about security risks that are network attached printers. It seems HP may be the only company that is at least giving this space some thought.
Not that I think they have coders capable of making secure printers, but they are giving it some thought.
A notch is something that everyone in the tech world knows about and the existence of notches has been discussed here on every phone related story since before the iPhone X was released, though the iPhone made it popular.
Your UID indicates you're not new here, so were you in a coma for the past 2 years or maybe in the jungle finding yourself?
AXS uses Flash Seats to control entry. The barcode is dynamically generated right when you go to the concert. There's no printed version of anything, no screenshotting, no sharing, nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I find the outrage on behalf of the poor users hilarious. The actual reality is that people couldn't give a shit what logo comes up when they start their computers. They have never gone out of their way to upgrade, and that won't change in 2020 either. When a computer melts into a small puddle, they'll buy a new one. That one will come with whatever is currently on offer. Nothing more.
No muggings, no gun, just a hamster plodding along on his wheel.
Microsoft per their marketing plan will force as many as they can on to Windows 10.
Err no. Windows 10 sales are now being almost exclusively driven by PC sales. What are MS going to do? Provide a formally EOL OS to users? There's not marketing plan about it, Windows 7 is not provided for new installs, and no sane person would expect it to be.
Maybe PC sales were lower in part because of waiting for and then disappointment with Windows 10.
Unlikely. PC sales have been on an almost linear decline since the iPad was released, or since Intel Core series processors and that horrible "Netbook" craze died. Pick your poison. Either way everyone who needed a computer had a computer and stopped upgrading computers at fast rates. This isn't anything due to Windows, it's been a long time since Windows was a driver of PC upgrades. It's more of a reflection that we are approaching a replacement / maintenance phase of the industry.
That is truly a breach of privacy! I need warn someone. > "Okay Google, post the following on Facebook: ..."
Mine hasn't. You see, in Windows 7, you can choose which updates you install...
Cool story. The reality however is that 99.99% of non-corporate Windows 7 installs out there are either malware infested cesspools thanks to updates being completely disabled, or have the telemetry installed.
I've never met a normal user who scrutinises updates on a per KB number level.
in their opinion.
David Koch is that you?
What are we really using more of that the Earth produces?
A metric fuckton of resources. Wood, coal, oil, gas, just to name a few. Not all resources are finite though, some exist in a closed loop: water (fresh drinking water not withstanding, water itself is infinitely cycled).
Some of these resources exist in a closed loop, but the control scheme has such a low gain with such unfathomably long timescales that the materials are effectively not being regenerated at all.
Think of it this way:
Every year your dad buys 365 twinkies.
You are eating two twinkies per day.
On July 2nd of July you have consumed more twinkies than your father put in the cupboard.
But here's the thing. You father has been putting twinkies in that cupboard for the past 50 years. Yet you only discovered the wonders of smoking weed and getting the munchies a few years ago. Now the supply of twinkies is going down faster than the replacement rate and one day when you're high as a kite you're going to be super pissed when you find the cupboard empty.
Are you in Egypt? Because it appears that you're writing your post from de' Nile.
I'm using this in future :-) Thanks for the morning lol.
You can't say it was well-understood to be a giant non-event when it is currently a gigantic event
Except it isn't a giant event. Pick your colloquialism: storm in a teacup, mountain out of a molehill, or just call it what it is: media driven absurdity and fear about a security risk that is not well understood by the media.
To wit: Not every chipmaker chose to do it the irresponsible way that was highly likely to cause problems. AMD didn't, and the rest is just bullshit fucking excuses.
And you can't say "not every". That is being intentionally dishonest when the actual answer was: 1. One chip maker chose not to do this. IBM, ARM, Sun (now Oracle) all followed Intel's path in some of their products.
who make bullshit excuses
Keep trying mate, you'll understand the issue one day.
That's a good analysis but I'm not sure it would necessarily pan out that way due to the current social situation.
You can't normalize what is already normalized. There are a good chunk of young people who have lived now their entire lives with the censorship. They know it too. Last time I was in China for longer than a quick holiday I got a local SIM, local internet connection, and on my first day I just out aloud in the office "damn what do you use instead of Google maps?" Expecting a list of alternative map services I instead was recommend software to bypass the censorship. It is completely normalised in China. People accept the censorship and work around it when they have to. There's no urgency to change anything, no urgency to overthrow any government, just living happily with the status quo.
I ended up downloading a program from the app store that was recommended called "Break the Wall". One of my american colleges told me it worked well and was recommended to her by the phone shop which sold her the SIM card.
Once Google starts making money in China, China will have leverage over Google by threatening to restrict Google in China
What the hell are you talking about. China already has leverage over Google and always has. It's why they pulled their services out of the country in the first place.
This means that China will be able to insist that certain terms and pages do not appear anywhere, or at least get very low ranking.
See my original comment, you have just proposed an imperfect censorship tool and we are now applying it to a different company with different operations and logarithms. When you pour water into a sieve some goes through. You pour water into two sieves, even more goes through.
Recall the way that China got all airlines to drop the term Tiawan. In the USA, you will not see it.
A stupid comparison given that the USA is aligned with most of the western world in their recognition of a one China policy which does not formally recognise nor have diplomatic relations with the Republic Of China. You may also note that requirement was to not recognise Taiwan as China insists the ROC is part of the PRC. Instead what was achieved is that most airlines simply removed country names cleverly skirting the entire issue, another good example of weak censorship not achieving its complete goal.
Step 1: Spend bazillions on a company that has not made profit.
Step 2: Demand magic profit.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Divestment, the idea of profiting to the tune of the value of these unicorns is utterly absurd.
The risk was understood at the time.
It was. Risk is likelihood and consequence. And at the time the likelihood was deemed to be never and the consequence was well understood for this giant non-event that it is.
Now with your hindsight the likelihood has changed. Claiming they knew this back then is just stupid. The earliest documentation of side channel attacks were theorised in 1995 and remained a theory for over 2 decades. The practical security impacts of it still remain theoretical for most computing workloads where you don't hand complete control to a nefarious actor for an extended period of time anyway.
Intel made the right call back then. As they did now, as did Linux Torvalds when he provided a method to bypass the Linux security patch, as did Microsoft when they provided a method to bypass their security patch, as did Theo when he provided a method to bypass the BSD security patches.
Everyone except for a few silly people on Slashdot realise that performance trumps security against this attack in a very wide number of cases precisely because the risk is so incredibly low.
Now please get of the internet, there are scary malware looking packets out there. It's really not safe here.
Having a censored Google in China is better than having no Google in China. Censorship is not perfect. Results and information slips through the cracks constantly. By adding a second choice there's a second gap for censored content to slip through. A big foreign owned gap that isn't quite as tightly controlled as the state run gaps.
Why? For providing a second source of searching the internet to the Chinese thereby weakening the effects of state run censorship through mistakes and imperfections in the control of an American company?
Can you point me to a public Google document that is dated from this decade that actually has those words in it?
Censored hands down!
Nope. Censorship relies on the absolute control of information. Absolute control of information is best achieved through a single source that is under complete control. Adding a second player as a source of information, and one that is ultimately external to the government will result in ever more previously censored content slipping through the cracks.
By launching a censored service in China the result is less censorship and more access to wider material.
Censorship is very imperfect, even if you do ultimately control everything, but even less perfect when you add 3rd parties to the mix.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Give it a rest. Larry and Sergey were richer than God before the first use of the phrase you're misquoting (Don't Be Evil) was ever released, during Google's IPO. That was also the last time that phrase was used publicly by anyone except for tech worshipers applying their own wishful thinking as to the company that Google was.
Secondly there's nothing evil about their actions here. If anything it's quite the opposite. Google is giving the Chinese choice of a second search engine which they currently don't have access to. Censorship being an imperfect tool that it is breaks down the more players are involved. I'm sorry that your idealistic world view of coming into another country and breaking down it's government from the inside isn't panning out quite like you hope, but this is still a net good thing.
It just goes to show "Do No Evil" was complete and utter media theatre. Google will do anything for the almighty dollar!
Two things about your statement:
1) The expansion of choice even if it is regulated choice is a good thing regardless of how you spin it. Censorship is imperfect and gets less perfect the more players are involved. Given the option between one in country source of information, or one in country source of information + an external source of information that has been given guidance on how to provide that information, the latter option will always provide users with more access to previously censored content.
2) Do No Evil never existed. You're probably thinking of "Don't Be Evil" a phrase used by Google once in any formal marketing material, and that was in the IPO documents back in the mid 00s. The phrase was never in their corporate philosophy, never appeared on their website, and only exists in their internal code of conduct. If one thing is clear it's that people's unrealistic wishful thinking of how Google works was just that, wishful thinking.
I understand you are tied to your smartphone, but ticket booths and paper tickets still exist. Give up some of the convenience of booking online
Lol what are you watching, some small local musician no one has ever heard of? In all seriousness though there's a large number of shows these days that never make it to any ticket office. A small group are reserved for registered fan clubs, some for competitions, and the rest will sell out within minutes online. Ticket offices just aren't a thing for many events.
All of that is also beside the point. At no point during the ticket purchase was the app required for this. The app requirement came *after* the ticket was purchased, even by people who've never heard or used the app. Your local office doesn't help you there, thought it would give you the opportunity to vent your disagreement with a person in front of you when they tell you their (IMO) idiotic policy.
Yep, because releasing plans for building a nuclear bomb is totally the same thing as releasing plans for something someone can just hit print on their own (or their friend's) $500 printer.
To be clear, it's a stupid ruling in the face of free speech and given the rest of the gun culture, but not quite as stupid as your comparison.
Interestingly the last HP advert I saw about printers directly talked about security risks that are network attached printers. It seems HP may be the only company that is at least giving this space some thought.
Not that I think they have coders capable of making secure printers, but they are giving it some thought.
A notch is something that everyone in the tech world knows about and the existence of notches has been discussed here on every phone related story since before the iPhone X was released, though the iPhone made it popular.
Your UID indicates you're not new here, so were you in a coma for the past 2 years or maybe in the jungle finding yourself?
AXS uses Flash Seats to control entry. The barcode is dynamically generated right when you go to the concert. There's no printed version of anything, no screenshotting, no sharing, nothing.
No App, No concert.