He's talking about the 1980's, when US car manufacturers were still expecting people to buy a new car -every- year. I was there, that's how it was.
The reason they had so much trouble was that the overseas manufacturers were starting to make cars that would last almost ten years.
10 years? Really? Remember the Hyundai Pony? If there is one that still runs, it's because it was bought by a grandma who died the next day, and nobody in their right mind wanted to drive the oil burning POS. There are plenty of 80s GM cars still on the road today, though, which should tell you something.
Hmmmm.....and Anonymous Coward, not specifying any details, but making outlandish claims. I call bullshit.
Unless, of course, you're talking about replacing the front end time and again after you run into a bridge abutment driving home piss drunk at 3 in the morning....
Honda has had 15 engines on the Ward's 10 best engines lists over the years. GM has had 29. Sure, GM's had a few lemons in their time, but so have all the Japanese ones. The Civic del Sol got a "Not Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports, due to "the worst body integrity" in the industry, or something like that. (Been a long time since I read that review, and I don't remember the exact wording.)
J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study for 2013 vehicles, based on complaints for vehicles between 2-3 years old, included at least 3 GM products listed on the "most reliable" side: Buick Encore, Chevy Silverado HD, and Camaro. Incidentally, GMC, Chevrolet, and Buick all receive better Problems/100 vehicles scores than Honda, Acura, and Infiniti. Buick's score is even better than Toyota's. http://canada.jdpower.com/pres...
Similarly, J.D. Power's 10 most reliable vehicles for 2016 includes four GM products: Buick Verano and LaCrosse, and the Chevy Malibu and Camaro. http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...
It's funny, because I hear people complain about GM reliability all the time, and they're usually either referring to some neighbour who has an entry level Cobalt (sample of 1) or stuff from 20-30 years ago. These same people who decry old GM reliability would sometimes praise Hyundai reliability, while completely and totally failing to remember the debacle that was the Pony and Excel. Every single one of them burned oil badly after 2-3 years, and virtually all of them had rust perforation holes within 6 years. 80s GM cars, while slow due to overly ambitious emissions regulations for the time (just like most other manufacturers in the world, though, with the strange exception of the Buick turbos) were paragons of reliability compared to Hyundai at the time.
I always had problems because if water got onto the hot exhaust manifold and piping, the steam would get into the distributor, condense, and short it out.
You had a crack in your distributor cap, or old crappy wires.
Well, I'm not really a Mopar kind of guy, so I couldn't have told you for sure. I knew I'd seen the weird angle ones at car shows though, but I suppose a lot of the ones you see there all done up are going to be 440s and 383s and such. I didn't realize it was just the big blocks, that had it at the front, though. Thanks for the info.
My first car was a 1981 Chevy Malibu with a small block Chevy V8. The distributor was at the top rear of the engine, behind the air intake. I could hit a > foot deep puddle at 50mph, and it wouldn't bat an eye. Sure, it slowed down a lot due to the water pressure against the front tires, but I never once had it cause a miss on even a single cylinder. The front wheel drives that were becoming popular at the time, though, all had the ignition systems on the front of the engine, behind the grill and radiator, so they got soaked and stalled almost immediately in a torrential downpour which plugged up sewer grates with garbage. In any driving situation that could cause wet ignition to stall out my car, I'd be much more concerned with hydrolock due to the proximity of the intake. Now, if you're talking about a Ford or Chrysler V8 engine, then the distributor was at the front of the engine, so somewhat more prone to getting wet. Some GM divisions also had it at the top front for their engines - the Buick 231 V6 comes to mind - but these were still much less prone to wet weather stalling than the front-mounted ignitions of a lot of transverse engines of the time.
Yup. My first Japanese car (a Subaru) lasted fourteen years. That's longer than both american cars I'd owned previously, put together, twice over, and then some.
So, 14 years.....divided by two cars = 7 years per car.....twice over = 3.5 years per car....."and then some." So you only got 3 years each out of two American cars? What'd you do? Run them into an overpass abutment when you were driving home piss drunk at 3 in the morning? I've never had an American car last less than 14 years. And this is in Canada, where they're exposed to all sorts of cold weather related crap: salt, sand, freezing cold starts for 4 months of the year, etc. You do realize you need to actually change the engine oil on schedule, right?
That's what I was thinking (though IAMAL); ATT and Citigroup are two totally different fields, one being telecommunications and the other being finance. How could anyone get them confused?
They'll both screw over their customers for a penny?
I'm pretty sure the battery would be considered a module, too. Regardless, that's beside the point. To use a car analogy: If my car's check engine light comes on, and I replace an oxygen sensor to fix it, have I not actually "repaired" the car, because all I did was replace the oxygen sensor "module?" Sure, I'm not pulling the sensor apart and figuring out what's wrong with it, but I'm still repairing the car by replacing the bad component. Replacing a bad motherboard or display is just as much a repair as anything, because it takes a broken phone and returns it to fully operating condition.
Sure I would. Baiting APK is fun as hell. Something about picturing him with wild, psychotic eyes, furiously hammering on his keyboard in a dingy basement lit by a single bare light bulb, as he spends his entire waking life searching forums for anyone who might have posted anything even slightly disrespectful to his almighty-tower-of-knowledge-that-makes-mere-mortal-IT-workers-quake-in-their-boots, while foaming at the mouth and babbling incoherently.....it's kind of amusing, you know?
You're paying the IT staff to clean up after a data breach, rather than doing something productive that they normally do. For that reason, including the labour costs of your own IT dept is the correct thing to do in calculating the costs of a breach.
Think about it this way: You run a company that makes windows. You pay a couple of dozen guys to cut glass, cut frames, assemble the parts, etc. One morning, you come into your office and realize that overnight some hooligans have smashed all the windows in your admin building and factory. Since you already have glass onsite, and a bunch of people who make windows, by your logic, it would costs nothing at all for you to fix them, because you're just paying your regular employees to do it. Meanwhile, your orders get delayed, because your employees are making replacement windows for your own business, rather than filling customer orders; customers get annoyed by late deliveries, cancel and go to the competition, and you've got a week or two of no income while your employees fix your building.
I write a standalone program. I include no network functionality whatsoever. Are you seriously telling me I should have to run a network sniffer against it because I don't know what it's doing on the network, and if I don't, it's somehow my own fault for not knowing what it's doing? I wrote the fucking thing, and didn't tell it to communicate over the network. In what fucked up world should I expect it to make network connections, when I haven't programmed it to?!
Are you seriously that mentally challenged? How is it not clear that it was anonymous FTP?
led him to an anonymous FTP server that allowed anyone access.
That's pretty damned clear that it was an anonymous FTP server, because it's described as an anonymous FTP server right there in the text.
There's also the quote about it being a password protected FTP server back in 2006, with a single password that never changed, until they made it anonymous around 2010.
And are you really assuming that they were password protected because they're medical records, which are "always under password protected area?" They must have been password protected, simply because they should have been password protected? Your faith in humanity is astounding. And misplaced.
Maybe next time, instead of pretending you read the article, you could, you know, actually read the article.
Who's wallet did he steal? All he did was look at your wallet sitting on the counter, saw that there was money hanging out of it, then turned around and left.
Here's the long view. Something peculiar happened on Earth about 150 years ago.
Yes. We started measuring global temperatures accurately, with thermometers, instead of using ice core and other proxies. We know that the proxies have much lower resolution than the actual measurements and are not comparable at all, but AGW proponents still plot them on the same graph as thermometer measurements, which makes for this big, scary spike since 1870.
Incidentally, I've read (although I can't remember where, but I'll have to put the effort into finding it sometime) that if you use ice core proxy data for the last 150 years, this spike is completely gone. Meaning, of course, these kind of "unprecedented, rapid" fluctuations could have been happening the entire time, and we'd never know, because we don't have anything other than low resolution proxy data for that time period.
Until the AGW people stop plotting these two completely different datasets on the same graph, they'll have a very difficult time convincing skeptics of the accuracy of the science, since they're doing something that is specifically disallowed in EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE on the planet.
Apple isn't arguing that writing software is speech. Apple is repeating the declaration by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that source code is speech. This may have also gone to the Supreme Court; I can't find a current reference to it, although not being American, I may not be looking in the right place..... Your claim that Apple has already implemented code in response to California's legal requirements doesn't hold water, either. Yes, Apple implemented anti-theft code that was compatible with California anti-theft regulations. This does not mean that the government now has carte blanche to require any "features" they feel should be implemented in Apple's software. Apple could very well have thought that anti-theft code was a good idea, and implemented it anyway, even without California's regulations. I think it's a good idea, too. Does that mean I have to give up all my free speech rights, or I'll be a hypocrite? Of course not. Don't be an idiot.
There is precedence for this. As a simple example: a warrant can be issued to a car company to activate a kill switch in a car to stop a high speed pursuit. The fact of the matter lost on most people taking ideological exception with this case is that Apple is making a lot of noise over nothing. They could have helped the FBI gain access to this phone without compromising security for all their users. Instead they chose to cease the opportunity for a PR campaign. An unfortunate, and down right twisted, decision if you ask me.
This is not even remotely comparable. In the car analogy, the manufacturer already built the kill switch into the car. All the warrant is asking them to do is to flick said switch. (Incidentally, these high-speed chase cases usually aren't done with warrants. Warrants take too long to get. Instead, they use the reasoning of imminent danger to the public.) In Apple's case, the "kill switch" didn't even exist. The FBI wants them to write it. Since the Supreme Court has already declared that code is speech (despite various claims on this thread that the idea is stupid for Apple to even put forward) then what the FBI wants to do is to force Apple to say something for the government, that Apple in no way believes themselves.
This is only tangentially related to encryption, but is almost entirely about free speech.
If you're politician, no. Everything is fixed in stone. If you change your position because the facts have changed, then you're a hypocrite and a liar.
GoC is a Microsoft house and always will be. They are so entrenched they write the RFCs to ensure they will always win
Would that be why the main gc.ca site runs Apache and OpenSSL on Linux, and why Revenue Canada had to shut down online filing for a few days when Heartbleed hit to upgrade systems? Incidentally, they also use Akamai CDN (which runs Linux) for load balancing.
There hasn't been a single person in the EMEAASPAK world killed by carbon monoxide poisoning, and our cars don't catch fire and obliterate in 30 seconds every time we crash, nor our homes tumble down because a fire has started, you just clean it out, put a new coat of paint and move on. Perhaps it is the American way of building stuff that is wrong and everyone is in the scare? Heck, even most of the eastern seaboard uses real bricks and mortar.
Wow. So, a Japanese car manufacturer screws something up, it's discovered by an Australian security researcher, and somehow you still manage to find a way to turn it into an "Americans can't build anything for shit" rant. Not only that, but all your examples of how American designs fail miserably are completely wrong. I can't remember when was the last time I've seen a car set on fire in a crash, but the only one I remember off the top of my head was a VW. Actually, that one technically didn't crash. It just spontaneously combusted. America has some of the best house building codes in the world, since California sees lots of earthquakes. Sure, the same standards aren't required in Maine, but that's OK, because it's thousands of miles away. I haven't seen a house tumble down because a fire started. I've seen them tumble down because a fire turned into an inferno, but a house anywhere in the world would do the same. Stop being such a stuck up snob.
Slashdot Mirror
He's talking about the 1980's, when US car manufacturers were still expecting people to buy a new car -every- year. I was there, that's how it was.
The reason they had so much trouble was that the overseas manufacturers were starting to make cars that would last almost ten years.
10 years? Really? Remember the Hyundai Pony? If there is one that still runs, it's because it was bought by a grandma who died the next day, and nobody in their right mind wanted to drive the oil burning POS. There are plenty of 80s GM cars still on the road today, though, which should tell you something.
Hmmmm.....and Anonymous Coward, not specifying any details, but making outlandish claims. I call bullshit.
Unless, of course, you're talking about replacing the front end time and again after you run into a bridge abutment driving home piss drunk at 3 in the morning....
Honda has had 15 engines on the Ward's 10 best engines lists over the years. GM has had 29.
Sure, GM's had a few lemons in their time, but so have all the Japanese ones. The Civic del Sol got a "Not Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports, due to "the worst body integrity" in the industry, or something like that. (Been a long time since I read that review, and I don't remember the exact wording.)
J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study for 2013 vehicles, based on complaints for vehicles between 2-3 years old, included at least 3 GM products listed on the "most reliable" side: Buick Encore, Chevy Silverado HD, and Camaro.
Incidentally, GMC, Chevrolet, and Buick all receive better Problems/100 vehicles scores than Honda, Acura, and Infiniti. Buick's score is even better than Toyota's.
http://canada.jdpower.com/pres...
Similarly, J.D. Power's 10 most reliable vehicles for 2016 includes four GM products: Buick Verano and LaCrosse, and the Chevy Malibu and Camaro.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...
Another where GM has as many or more cars on the most reliable list as any other manufacturer:
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/ar...
It's funny, because I hear people complain about GM reliability all the time, and they're usually either referring to some neighbour who has an entry level Cobalt (sample of 1) or stuff from 20-30 years ago. These same people who decry old GM reliability would sometimes praise Hyundai reliability, while completely and totally failing to remember the debacle that was the Pony and Excel. Every single one of them burned oil badly after 2-3 years, and virtually all of them had rust perforation holes within 6 years. 80s GM cars, while slow due to overly ambitious emissions regulations for the time (just like most other manufacturers in the world, though, with the strange exception of the Buick turbos) were paragons of reliability compared to Hyundai at the time.
I always had problems because if water got onto the hot exhaust manifold and piping, the steam would get into the distributor, condense, and short it out.
You had a crack in your distributor cap, or old crappy wires.
Well, I'm not really a Mopar kind of guy, so I couldn't have told you for sure. I knew I'd seen the weird angle ones at car shows though, but I suppose a lot of the ones you see there all done up are going to be 440s and 383s and such. I didn't realize it was just the big blocks, that had it at the front, though.
Thanks for the info.
dear lawmakers. count to 10 before doing something really stupid after a major event.
It won't do any good, because that's exactly what they'll do: count to 10, then do something stupid.
My first car was a 1981 Chevy Malibu with a small block Chevy V8. The distributor was at the top rear of the engine, behind the air intake. I could hit a > foot deep puddle at 50mph, and it wouldn't bat an eye. Sure, it slowed down a lot due to the water pressure against the front tires, but I never once had it cause a miss on even a single cylinder.
The front wheel drives that were becoming popular at the time, though, all had the ignition systems on the front of the engine, behind the grill and radiator, so they got soaked and stalled almost immediately in a torrential downpour which plugged up sewer grates with garbage. In any driving situation that could cause wet ignition to stall out my car, I'd be much more concerned with hydrolock due to the proximity of the intake.
Now, if you're talking about a Ford or Chrysler V8 engine, then the distributor was at the front of the engine, so somewhat more prone to getting wet. Some GM divisions also had it at the top front for their engines - the Buick 231 V6 comes to mind - but these were still much less prone to wet weather stalling than the front-mounted ignitions of a lot of transverse engines of the time.
Yup. My first Japanese car (a Subaru) lasted fourteen years. That's longer than both american cars I'd owned previously, put together, twice over, and then some.
So, 14 years.....divided by two cars = 7 years per car.....twice over = 3.5 years per car....."and then some."
So you only got 3 years each out of two American cars? What'd you do? Run them into an overpass abutment when you were driving home piss drunk at 3 in the morning?
I've never had an American car last less than 14 years. And this is in Canada, where they're exposed to all sorts of cold weather related crap: salt, sand, freezing cold starts for 4 months of the year, etc.
You do realize you need to actually change the engine oil on schedule, right?
That's what I was thinking (though IAMAL); ATT and Citigroup are two totally different fields, one being telecommunications and the other being finance. How could anyone get them confused?
They'll both screw over their customers for a penny?
I'm pretty sure the battery would be considered a module, too.
Regardless, that's beside the point.
To use a car analogy: If my car's check engine light comes on, and I replace an oxygen sensor to fix it, have I not actually "repaired" the car, because all I did was replace the oxygen sensor "module?" Sure, I'm not pulling the sensor apart and figuring out what's wrong with it, but I'm still repairing the car by replacing the bad component.
Replacing a bad motherboard or display is just as much a repair as anything, because it takes a broken phone and returns it to fully operating condition.
Sure I would. Baiting APK is fun as hell.
Something about picturing him with wild, psychotic eyes, furiously hammering on his keyboard in a dingy basement lit by a single bare light bulb, as he spends his entire waking life searching forums for anyone who might have posted anything even slightly disrespectful to his almighty-tower-of-knowledge-that-makes-mere-mortal-IT-workers-quake-in-their-boots, while foaming at the mouth and babbling incoherently.....it's kind of amusing, you know?
50 years...75 years...nearly 100 years. What's the difference? Either way, at least now I suspect we know where APK came from.
You're paying the IT staff to clean up after a data breach, rather than doing something productive that they normally do. For that reason, including the labour costs of your own IT dept is the correct thing to do in calculating the costs of a breach.
Think about it this way: You run a company that makes windows. You pay a couple of dozen guys to cut glass, cut frames, assemble the parts, etc. One morning, you come into your office and realize that overnight some hooligans have smashed all the windows in your admin building and factory. Since you already have glass onsite, and a bunch of people who make windows, by your logic, it would costs nothing at all for you to fix them, because you're just paying your regular employees to do it.
Meanwhile, your orders get delayed, because your employees are making replacement windows for your own business, rather than filling customer orders; customers get annoyed by late deliveries, cancel and go to the competition, and you've got a week or two of no income while your employees fix your building.
I write a standalone program. I include no network functionality whatsoever. Are you seriously telling me I should have to run a network sniffer against it because I don't know what it's doing on the network, and if I don't, it's somehow my own fault for not knowing what it's doing?
I wrote the fucking thing, and didn't tell it to communicate over the network. In what fucked up world should I expect it to make network connections, when I haven't programmed it to?!
Angry much?
Of course he is. He got force upgraded to Windows 10.
Are you seriously that mentally challenged? How is it not clear that it was anonymous FTP?
led him to an anonymous FTP server that allowed anyone access.
That's pretty damned clear that it was an anonymous FTP server, because it's described as an anonymous FTP server right there in the text.
There's also the quote about it being a password protected FTP server back in 2006, with a single password that never changed, until they made it anonymous around 2010.
And are you really assuming that they were password protected because they're medical records, which are "always under password protected area?" They must have been password protected, simply because they should have been password protected? Your faith in humanity is astounding. And misplaced.
Maybe next time, instead of pretending you read the article, you could, you know, actually read the article.
but one would have to wonder why he would be trying to access systems of someone who wasn't his client.
Because it was anonymous FTP? That's the whole point of anon FTP, you know: that anybody is allowed to use it.
Who's wallet did he steal? All he did was look at your wallet sitting on the counter, saw that there was money hanging out of it, then turned around and left.
Here's the long view. Something peculiar happened on Earth about 150 years ago.
Yes. We started measuring global temperatures accurately, with thermometers, instead of using ice core and other proxies. We know that the proxies have much lower resolution than the actual measurements and are not comparable at all, but AGW proponents still plot them on the same graph as thermometer measurements, which makes for this big, scary spike since 1870.
Incidentally, I've read (although I can't remember where, but I'll have to put the effort into finding it sometime) that if you use ice core proxy data for the last 150 years, this spike is completely gone. Meaning, of course, these kind of "unprecedented, rapid" fluctuations could have been happening the entire time, and we'd never know, because we don't have anything other than low resolution proxy data for that time period.
Until the AGW people stop plotting these two completely different datasets on the same graph, they'll have a very difficult time convincing skeptics of the accuracy of the science, since they're doing something that is specifically disallowed in EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE on the planet.
Apple is arguing that writing software constitutes free speech. Therefore, forcing them to write software to help solve a crime would be infringing on their free speech. Except, the problem the FBI is encountering was created by Apple complying with a law that required them to write anti-theft software into their OS. Ironic, to say the least.
Apple isn't arguing that writing software is speech. Apple is repeating the declaration by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that source code is speech. This may have also gone to the Supreme Court; I can't find a current reference to it, although not being American, I may not be looking in the right place.....
Your claim that Apple has already implemented code in response to California's legal requirements doesn't hold water, either. Yes, Apple implemented anti-theft code that was compatible with California anti-theft regulations. This does not mean that the government now has carte blanche to require any "features" they feel should be implemented in Apple's software.
Apple could very well have thought that anti-theft code was a good idea, and implemented it anyway, even without California's regulations. I think it's a good idea, too. Does that mean I have to give up all my free speech rights, or I'll be a hypocrite? Of course not. Don't be an idiot.
There is precedence for this. As a simple example: a warrant can be issued to a car company to activate a kill switch in a car to stop a high speed pursuit. The fact of the matter lost on most people taking ideological exception with this case is that Apple is making a lot of noise over nothing. They could have helped the FBI gain access to this phone without compromising security for all their users. Instead they chose to cease the opportunity for a PR campaign. An unfortunate, and down right twisted, decision if you ask me.
This is not even remotely comparable. In the car analogy, the manufacturer already built the kill switch into the car. All the warrant is asking them to do is to flick said switch. (Incidentally, these high-speed chase cases usually aren't done with warrants. Warrants take too long to get. Instead, they use the reasoning of imminent danger to the public.)
In Apple's case, the "kill switch" didn't even exist. The FBI wants them to write it. Since the Supreme Court has already declared that code is speech (despite various claims on this thread that the idea is stupid for Apple to even put forward) then what the FBI wants to do is to force Apple to say something for the government, that Apple in no way believes themselves.
This is only tangentially related to encryption, but is almost entirely about free speech.
Dude, you have some serious multiple personality disorder.
If you're politician, no. Everything is fixed in stone. If you change your position because the facts have changed, then you're a hypocrite and a liar.
Only fools don't change, my friend.
Well, of course. He said "politician".
GoC is a Microsoft house and always will be. They are so entrenched they write the RFCs to ensure they will always win
Would that be why the main gc.ca site runs Apache and OpenSSL on Linux, and why Revenue Canada had to shut down online filing for a few days when Heartbleed hit to upgrade systems? Incidentally, they also use Akamai CDN (which runs Linux) for load balancing.
There hasn't been a single person in the EMEAASPAK world killed by carbon monoxide poisoning, and our cars don't catch fire and obliterate in 30 seconds every time we crash, nor our homes tumble down because a fire has started, you just clean it out, put a new coat of paint and move on. Perhaps it is the American way of building stuff that is wrong and everyone is in the scare? Heck, even most of the eastern seaboard uses real bricks and mortar.
Wow. So, a Japanese car manufacturer screws something up, it's discovered by an Australian security researcher, and somehow you still manage to find a way to turn it into an "Americans can't build anything for shit" rant.
Not only that, but all your examples of how American designs fail miserably are completely wrong. I can't remember when was the last time I've seen a car set on fire in a crash, but the only one I remember off the top of my head was a VW. Actually, that one technically didn't crash. It just spontaneously combusted.
America has some of the best house building codes in the world, since California sees lots of earthquakes. Sure, the same standards aren't required in Maine, but that's OK, because it's thousands of miles away. I haven't seen a house tumble down because a fire started. I've seen them tumble down because a fire turned into an inferno, but a house anywhere in the world would do the same.
Stop being such a stuck up snob.