Get a packet sniffer on Windows ten. You can't run calculator without MS knowing.
Seriously. Try it. Every time you run any of the new-style apps, including calculator or the image preview, it opens up a brief encrypted TCP connection to a MS licensing server. I have a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just ignore the bit about photoDNA at the end - that was a theory on my part that I've now determined is unlikely. It's not actually reporting on images, it's reporting on every time the image previewer is loaded. Or calculator, or sound recorder, or quite a few other things. I'm not sure that's much better.
I had quite a bit of fun at the weekend with wireshark seeing just what a freshly-upgraded no-software-installed Windows 10 reports, after setting every privacy option I could find to private. The answer is pretty much everything. Even if you disable searching from the start menu, it still executes the search - it just doesn't display the results. It fetches updates for the default tiles on the start menu (weather and news) even after you remove the tiles. It establishes mysterious TLS connections frequently that I can't identify the purpose of - some of them might be checking for updates, but I doubt it check for upgrades every few minutes.
Don't trust in my paranoia. Install wireshark and look for yourself.
The good news is that Windows 10 firewall can be made to block almost everything with a deny rule and a list of IP ranges. The bad news is that it's quite tricky to do so without also blocking windows update, Bing, the Windows store (No great loss) and I suspect a few Azure hosts.
Don't forget the Palin email thing. It seems to be a standard practice in US politics: There is just so much secret activity of dubious legality going on that needs to be kept away from the prying eyes of the media, everyone seems to have a desire for some off-the-record personal or unofficial communications channel. Occasionally someone gets caught, and the other party doe their best to exploit it to the fullest without reminding people that they were caught doing the same not long ago.
Many arguments cited as fallacies are actually heuristics: They are arguments that are usually valid, but not universally.
If an event A is always followed by event B, it is a fallacy to say from this that A causes B. But pointing this out as a fallacy does not mean A does not cause B. The 'fallacious' argument is flawed only in claiming to be an absolute proof: It is still very strong evidence, and should be taken as such in the absence of any evidence to the contrary or alternative explanation.
Or in shorter terms: Just because someone submits an clearly seriously flawed argument in support of a conclusion does not mean that valid arguments supporting the same conclusion could not still be made.
Perhaps we need a more concrete scenario to figure this out.
You are out. You get mugged. The mugger brandishes his gun around, waving it in your general direction in a threatening manner, and demanding your money. Clearly your life is in danger, so you pull your gun out. As soon as the mugger sees you reaching for your gun he turns and starts to flee. Do you shoot anyway, or let him escape?
I'd require a survey showing some of these views are endorsed by a reasonably large, representative (not self-selected) sample of a group that might be classed as 'progressive.' Individuals do not count - that's just a selection bias. Perhaps a poll of the student body of some university, or at least a petition signed by at least, say, 5% of the students.
Those are all things which one progressive, somewhere, said were racist. Assuming the stories are accurate, and didn't come from the sort of email that starts 'FW: FW: FW:'
I used to know a real nutcase on a blog - the exact opposite of a progressive. Flag-waving uber-Christian patriot type. He believed that anyone who supported Obama should be executed for treason, as they had provided aid and comfort to the Moslims (He always used that spelling), enemies of the US.
So there exists somewhere, on the far-far-far right, a person who believes approximately one-half of the population of America should be executed for treason. Does that mean I can go around saying 'Conservatives want to execute heretics?' No, because that would be taking an extremist fringe and claiming they are representative of a much larger group. Just like you are doing.
No, that is exactly what you said. In your words: " I know if I pull a weapon someone is getting shot." I can see only two interpretations for this: Either you would shoot a fleeing assailant, or you intend to shoot the instant you draw so the assailant doesn't have time to react.
Sort of. The NRA advocates proper training, but they strictly oppose any legislative effort to ensure proper training. They fear the great American tradition of 'indirect lawmaking' - any form of regulation of guns, however well-intentioned or slight, could open the door to government abuse. If the government requires people go on a two-hour training and certification course to own a gun, what's to stop them from cutting the funding so they can only hold one course a year in western Alaska?
Because a lot of those gun nuts view the government as the enemy, a violent oppressor bent on destroying their individual freedoms, and they need a gun ready for when the revolution comes.
A filesystem does not need to be good enough to trust absolutely, because no filesystem should ever be trusted absolutely.
You just need to be confident that the chance of a fault is low enough that you can accept the amount of downtime it will take to restore from your backups. Which, I hope, are taken often and stored on independent physical media.
The chip-and-pin system itsself is very secure. The weakness lies elsewhere: Those cards have three different means of authentication, and you only need to hack one in order to make a payment. The other two are weak (magstripe) and absolutely pathetic (The numbers printed on it).
Slashdot Mirror
Get a packet sniffer on Windows ten. You can't run calculator without MS knowing.
Seriously. Try it. Every time you run any of the new-style apps, including calculator or the image preview, it opens up a brief encrypted TCP connection to a MS licensing server. I have a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just ignore the bit about photoDNA at the end - that was a theory on my part that I've now determined is unlikely. It's not actually reporting on images, it's reporting on every time the image previewer is loaded. Or calculator, or sound recorder, or quite a few other things. I'm not sure that's much better.
I had quite a bit of fun at the weekend with wireshark seeing just what a freshly-upgraded no-software-installed Windows 10 reports, after setting every privacy option I could find to private. The answer is pretty much everything. Even if you disable searching from the start menu, it still executes the search - it just doesn't display the results. It fetches updates for the default tiles on the start menu (weather and news) even after you remove the tiles. It establishes mysterious TLS connections frequently that I can't identify the purpose of - some of them might be checking for updates, but I doubt it check for upgrades every few minutes.
Don't trust in my paranoia. Install wireshark and look for yourself.
The good news is that Windows 10 firewall can be made to block almost everything with a deny rule and a list of IP ranges. The bad news is that it's quite tricky to do so without also blocking windows update, Bing, the Windows store (No great loss) and I suspect a few Azure hosts.
Don't forget the Palin email thing. It seems to be a standard practice in US politics: There is just so much secret activity of dubious legality going on that needs to be kept away from the prying eyes of the media, everyone seems to have a desire for some off-the-record personal or unofficial communications channel. Occasionally someone gets caught, and the other party doe their best to exploit it to the fullest without reminding people that they were caught doing the same not long ago.
Convicted, but the instant his appeal failed Bush commuted his sentence. Some people are just too well-connected to be subject to the justice system.
So you now have a scenario in which you pull your gun, and no-one gets shot. That wasn't too hard to settle.
Not quite.
Many arguments cited as fallacies are actually heuristics: They are arguments that are usually valid, but not universally.
If an event A is always followed by event B, it is a fallacy to say from this that A causes B. But pointing this out as a fallacy does not mean A does not cause B. The 'fallacious' argument is flawed only in claiming to be an absolute proof: It is still very strong evidence, and should be taken as such in the absence of any evidence to the contrary or alternative explanation.
Or in shorter terms: Just because someone submits an clearly seriously flawed argument in support of a conclusion does not mean that valid arguments supporting the same conclusion could not still be made.
Look at the prices for things. You'll be surprised how expensive it is as a hobby.
Just 75 years to go until the copyright expires.
Let's try to keep them all in once place.
Perhaps we need a more concrete scenario to figure this out.
You are out. You get mugged. The mugger brandishes his gun around, waving it in your general direction in a threatening manner, and demanding your money. Clearly your life is in danger, so you pull your gun out. As soon as the mugger sees you reaching for your gun he turns and starts to flee. Do you shoot anyway, or let him escape?
I'd require a survey showing some of these views are endorsed by a reasonably large, representative (not self-selected) sample of a group that might be classed as 'progressive.' Individuals do not count - that's just a selection bias. Perhaps a poll of the student body of some university, or at least a petition signed by at least, say, 5% of the students.
"Remember the basis for the right to bear arms is that the populous should be able to rise up against a despotic government."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't see anything about uprising there. What was that bit about 'well-regulated' and 'necessary to the security?'
Those are all things which one progressive, somewhere, said were racist. Assuming the stories are accurate, and didn't come from the sort of email that starts 'FW: FW: FW:'
I used to know a real nutcase on a blog - the exact opposite of a progressive. Flag-waving uber-Christian patriot type. He believed that anyone who supported Obama should be executed for treason, as they had provided aid and comfort to the Moslims (He always used that spelling), enemies of the US.
So there exists somewhere, on the far-far-far right, a person who believes approximately one-half of the population of America should be executed for treason. Does that mean I can go around saying 'Conservatives want to execute heretics?' No, because that would be taking an extremist fringe and claiming they are representative of a much larger group. Just like you are doing.
"Its all about narrative for the progressives."
s/progressives/people/
No, that is exactly what you said. In your words: " I know if I pull a weapon someone is getting shot." I can see only two interpretations for this: Either you would shoot a fleeing assailant, or you intend to shoot the instant you draw so the assailant doesn't have time to react.
Sort of. The NRA advocates proper training, but they strictly oppose any legislative effort to ensure proper training. They fear the great American tradition of 'indirect lawmaking' - any form of regulation of guns, however well-intentioned or slight, could open the door to government abuse. If the government requires people go on a two-hour training and certification course to own a gun, what's to stop them from cutting the funding so they can only hold one course a year in western Alaska?
Because a lot of those gun nuts view the government as the enemy, a violent oppressor bent on destroying their individual freedoms, and they need a gun ready for when the revolution comes.
A filesystem does not need to be good enough to trust absolutely, because no filesystem should ever be trusted absolutely.
You just need to be confident that the chance of a fault is low enough that you can accept the amount of downtime it will take to restore from your backups. Which, I hope, are taken often and stored on independent physical media.
Human?
To AM's credit, they only stored password hashes, and they used a decent hash algorithm.
The chip-and-pin system itsself is very secure. The weakness lies elsewhere: Those cards have three different means of authentication, and you only need to hack one in order to make a payment. The other two are weak (magstripe) and absolutely pathetic (The numbers printed on it).
Sort of. He admitted the account was his, but then claimed that the porn made him do it.
Why do we get through so much paper? Everything is electronic now, but much of it seems to need a printed copy too.
It's socket LGA 1151. New motherboard likely.
You cannot observe the self-awareness thing directly (yet, anyway) but you can deduce the process occurs by observing inputs and outputs.
The output of the brain actuates lots of muscles, and a few glands. The 'self awareness' is a part of the processing.