I thought the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change was to scare us?
I can't even fathom the level of confusion needed to come to that conclusion. What would scaring us achieve? Either there is AGW, in which case we need to do something about it, or there isn't, in which case there isn't anything we can do about it.
And that any attempt to minimize the fear was being a denier of settled science?
No. Attempting to pretend the consequences of AGW are less than the settled science says is generally considered being a denier, but minimizing the fear is not, by itself, evidence of being a denier as long as you stick to the science.
Maybe you should turn off Fox News, remove your Breitbart bookmark, and listen to what scientists are actually saying rather hearing it third hand from people who know nothing about it?
That doesn't make sense. That's like saying Donald Knuth is as stupid as I am because I can understand quite a few things he's famous for. Or it's like saying Roald Dahl is a terrible writer because 6 year olds understand his novels.
Einstein pulled a lot of information and theories together to form insights into the workings of the universe that a 9 year old (probably) couldn't do. But that doesn't mean those insights can't be explained.
Yup. For those who didn't grow up with this stuff: as an example, back in the 1980s, there were a lot of programs marketed as CP/M emulators, which worked with chips like the V30, a 8086 compatible chip that also could natively run 8080 software. The emulators emulated the CP/M API (BIOS and BDOS), not the CPU, allowing software for CP/M 2.x to run under MS DOS (and access the MS DOS file system.)
The misnomer that you can only use the term emulator for CPU emulation, and not API emulation, seems to be relatively new, I'm almost inclined to stay it started in this millennium.
There are good technical reasons why encouraging people to stream 6Gb video streams on modern cellular systems is not a good idea. I'm inclined though to suggest that if someone wants more than 1.5Mbps for continuous, non-bursty, bandwidth, the cellular companies should find a way to provide it, but charge that minority that needs it accordingly.
I suspect that most people, faced with a choice between $60/month wired, $60/cellular but with some applications reasonably throttled, and $200/mobile unthrottled, will prefer the two former choices. But sure, they should provide you with the $200 (probably more, just a ballpark figure) option.
Like they did when Bitcoin went from $1,000 to a $100 in a few days, after the Mt Gox implosion?
Nope. BTC continues to be unusable as a currency because when it's not dramatically increasing in value, it's plummeting in value. It has no stability. It'll continue to damage the crypto-currency sector for the foreseeable future, until it loses mindshare and relevance.
I'm sure this is useful to you, but given how rarely most of us leave the US, and given T-Mobile (for example) has perfectly reasonable data roaming offerings (unlimited 128kbps), I suspect the number of people who find Project Fi's roaming compelling is minuscule.
I'm not knocking supporting minority uses, I just question whether this is the kind of thing that'll make Project Fi take off. Most of us can think of features they could add to Android phones or Chromebooks that would make it compelling to us, but we know full well nobody else would care. This feels like that, with Fi having a nice roaming feature, but being a phenomenally expensive alternative to more ordinary plans for more traditional uses.
They're not even right. The most likely reason someone hovers over a tab is because they're waiting for the yellow pop-up to show the full title of the tab so we know whether this is the right one or not. What's the odds that it'll now take even longer to see the full title of the tab.
No, the US does not have laws against convicted criminals from being elected to public office, and it absolutely shouldn't have those laws. The fitness of someone to serve is ultimately determined by the public.
If you block people from being elected (or people from voting) who have committed crimes, you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged, and you encourage politicians to pass laws that disproportionately affect their opponents.
Yes, in some cases, that means a murderer or a rapist might be elected. But that's unlikely, I don't see the public supporting the election of a convicted murderer any time soon.
As for Manning? She did what did for the reasons we know. In my view, I'm less bothered about the notion that she violated the law by leaking secret information as I am that she did so impulsively and without care about who she handed that information over to. She's probably a good person, but her lack of care, not the fact she technically violated the law, is a greater concern here.
It may not go to zero, but I suspect it'll go very low and have very niche usage. Bitcoin is not scaling. It's hampered by the very features that its designers thought made it more robust - the requirement for a consensus of miners, and the entire mining concept with its implied permanent deflation. It needs major modifications to work, and there's no short term incentive amongst those who control it to agree to those modifications.
I think BTC is best seen as an interesting prototype built by people who knew more about computing than economics. BTC has mindshare at the moment, but that's solely because it was first. If cryptocurrencies take off, it'll probably be a more smartly designed alternative, probably one whose backers and controllers benefit from its viability as a currency above everything else, and who have no incentive to fix the markets.
More likely, we'll continue to use Visa and Mastercard the way we always have done, and forget using intermediate currencies, unless we're doing something illegal.
I'm 100% certain Manning's heart is in the right place. But she's impulsive in a dangerous way, politically inexperienced, and has proven herself a bad judge of character in terms of who she allies herself with. I just don't see any good coming out of this.
On the other hand, if the enemy has their hands on the real messages, they can periodically create mass panic and also discredit the system at the same time. I don't think there's much you can do about scenarios where the enemy can control the system beyond try to prevent them from controlling the system.
Assange is only wanted for avoiding prosecution for an alleged crime for which the charges have been withdrawn.
Which is normal. You can commit offenses against law enforcement regardless of whether law enforcement ultimately was justified in being interested in you. Otherwise it'd be a free for all and everyone would be resisting arrest or going into hiding all the time, because they'll only be convicted of anything related to those if they're convicted of whatever crime they're accused of, at which point a small fine for slipping out of your handcuffs isn't going to make much difference.
Also, bear in mind the charges were withdrawn because of the political situation, not because there was no evidence. Assange's behavior made it impossible to interview him in terms the Swedish legal system would recognize as legitimate, so it was impossible to proceed with the case. That's a far cry from them being withdrawn because there wasn't a case or the witnesses recanted or were proven lying.
He absolutely should be prosecuted for those offenses related to going into hiding. He knew there would be consequences in doing so.
The charges issued by sweden authorities was because of the strong arming of the US to punish economically or otherwise sweden so the swedes said yes master to washington
Just to be clear, this is 100% speculation, and is probably mostly incorrect. There's no advantage at all to the US in involving Sweden in this. The extradition treaty the UK has (not to mention the political relationship between the two) is far stronger, and if the same allegations had been made by people in Britain against Assange (ie if the aim is to convict Assange of an imprisonable offense to get him out of the way) it would be just as likely to be successful. British prisons are probably worse than Sweden's too.
That'd be a better solution if and only if you didn't lose functionality by doing so. The reason for many of those JS libraries is to make the desktop website fully functional. AMP is specifically for single article type posts.
you imbecile
Read the article, comprehend that this is for third parties to sell subscription, then post
read ->comprehend->post
The article is (as of 2:33pm ET) about employees being unaware of their employer's security issues. Maybe you should RTFA before telling others to do so?
It's the prefixes that bother me, I can never remember them, b for boolean I guess makes sense, but when you have names like 'rgbIsAlphaPixel' or 'pcCode' then it's just hard to read.
You could try going for a real carrier rather than a toy cellphone company whose service sounds like it's delivered through a rubber hose, and that only sells locked down toy cellphones.
1. No, a web page cannot "own" your system. SPECTRE has a proof of concept that'd allow a Javascript program to be able to read data in the same process. It's almost impossible to exploit, but, sure, if you can, you might possibly find that downloading a rogue JS file could copy your bank website's session cookie, if you're not running a recent version of Firefox or Chrome. But nothing SPECTRE allows will allow your computer to be modified in any way.
2. The discussion here is about kernel patches, which are related to MELTDOWN, not SPECTRE. Meltdown cannot be exploited using Javascript. It requires binaries. If you don't run AWS style services, then your current level of security is unlikely to be made worse by Meltdown. And like SPECTRE, MELTDOWN is read only, although in theory it could leak passwords that could allow someone else to hack into your system if it's not properly firewalled.
Meltdown is Intel-only and requires the ability to run binaries on the victim's computer. If you can run binaries on the victim's computer, you probably already have enough access to do whatever it is you want to do that made you want to hack them in the first place. The extent to which Meltdown adds security issues is miniscule.
Spectre is cross platform and can be exploited with Javascript. With difficulty. But it can. Kinda. There's sorta a proof of concept out there. Which works with one JS engine. And doesn't extract any useful information. But in theory if you know the exact status of the user's browser and you're very lucky you might be able to extract some information from it that you wouldn't normally have access to.
So, what is the rush here? Especially with Meltdown?
The entire fucking industry has gone completely nuts. You'd think that we were back in the 1990s with no memory protection and ActiveX given the panic about this.
And before anyone goes "Yeah, but it's still a problem", so are kernel patches that brick computers. We're bricking computers, and slowing down the ones we don't brick, because we're panicking over this rather than doing this properly.
So the solution is for websites to just create reduced versions of themselves for mobile use? Maybe sticking to a subset of HTML, using minimal JS, that kind of thing?
Perhaps someone could put together a framework and maybe even a standard to make it easier for web designers to follow. That way they'd be able to comply with it easily, and know immediately if they're adding too much stuff.
We could call it... I don't know... something to do with accelerated mobile web pages... what about Web Acceleration for Terrestrial Transfer. WATT. Or View-Only Lightweight Transmissions. VOLT. Or... I got it! Accelerated Mobile Pages, AMP.
Why not just using the existing one? Or even the existing infrastructure? If the SSID is called open.starbucks.com, the protocol could involve the same kind of certificate as you'd use to sign a website https// open.starbucks.com
All that's needed is the protocol. The who-owns-what bit's already done.
There's nothing magical about EOs and related executive statements and, yes, Congress has a right to review them and state explicitly that Congress's vision of the law conflicts with the executive's: Executive orders et al are how the executive enforces the laws Congress passes. The mechanism to overturn them exists to ensure the law is interpreted as per the branch of government that writes it, not the group tasked with enforcing it.
What you're essentially saying should happen is: Trump's FCC issues a policy statement indicating it'll circumvent the law by pretending Internet services are not general common carrier communication services, so Congress should pass another law that the FCC can then... ignore by pretending Internet services are not general common carrier communication services.
No. If Trump or the FCC or anyone else that's tasked with enforcing a law decides to willfully interpret the law in a manner opposite to that intended, Congress should use the tools available to force it to follow the law. Passing more laws wouldn't help.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't even fathom the level of confusion needed to come to that conclusion. What would scaring us achieve? Either there is AGW, in which case we need to do something about it, or there isn't, in which case there isn't anything we can do about it.
No. Attempting to pretend the consequences of AGW are less than the settled science says is generally considered being a denier, but minimizing the fear is not, by itself, evidence of being a denier as long as you stick to the science.
Maybe you should turn off Fox News, remove your Breitbart bookmark, and listen to what scientists are actually saying rather hearing it third hand from people who know nothing about it?
That doesn't make sense. That's like saying Donald Knuth is as stupid as I am because I can understand quite a few things he's famous for. Or it's like saying Roald Dahl is a terrible writer because 6 year olds understand his novels.
Einstein pulled a lot of information and theories together to form insights into the workings of the universe that a 9 year old (probably) couldn't do. But that doesn't mean those insights can't be explained.
Yup. For those who didn't grow up with this stuff: as an example, back in the 1980s, there were a lot of programs marketed as CP/M emulators, which worked with chips like the V30, a 8086 compatible chip that also could natively run 8080 software. The emulators emulated the CP/M API (BIOS and BDOS), not the CPU, allowing software for CP/M 2.x to run under MS DOS (and access the MS DOS file system.)
The misnomer that you can only use the term emulator for CPU emulation, and not API emulation, seems to be relatively new, I'm almost inclined to stay it started in this millennium.
There are good technical reasons why encouraging people to stream 6Gb video streams on modern cellular systems is not a good idea. I'm inclined though to suggest that if someone wants more than 1.5Mbps for continuous, non-bursty, bandwidth, the cellular companies should find a way to provide it, but charge that minority that needs it accordingly.
I suspect that most people, faced with a choice between $60/month wired, $60/cellular but with some applications reasonably throttled, and $200/mobile unthrottled, will prefer the two former choices. But sure, they should provide you with the $200 (probably more, just a ballpark figure) option.
Like they did when Bitcoin went from $1,000 to a $100 in a few days, after the Mt Gox implosion?
Nope. BTC continues to be unusable as a currency because when it's not dramatically increasing in value, it's plummeting in value. It has no stability. It'll continue to damage the crypto-currency sector for the foreseeable future, until it loses mindshare and relevance.
I'm sure this is useful to you, but given how rarely most of us leave the US, and given T-Mobile (for example) has perfectly reasonable data roaming offerings (unlimited 128kbps), I suspect the number of people who find Project Fi's roaming compelling is minuscule.
I'm not knocking supporting minority uses, I just question whether this is the kind of thing that'll make Project Fi take off. Most of us can think of features they could add to Android phones or Chromebooks that would make it compelling to us, but we know full well nobody else would care. This feels like that, with Fi having a nice roaming feature, but being a phenomenally expensive alternative to more ordinary plans for more traditional uses.
This is good news for Bitcoin!
They're not even right. The most likely reason someone hovers over a tab is because they're waiting for the yellow pop-up to show the full title of the tab so we know whether this is the right one or not. What's the odds that it'll now take even longer to see the full title of the tab.
No, the US does not have laws against convicted criminals from being elected to public office, and it absolutely shouldn't have those laws. The fitness of someone to serve is ultimately determined by the public.
If you block people from being elected (or people from voting) who have committed crimes, you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged, and you encourage politicians to pass laws that disproportionately affect their opponents.
Yes, in some cases, that means a murderer or a rapist might be elected. But that's unlikely, I don't see the public supporting the election of a convicted murderer any time soon.
As for Manning? She did what did for the reasons we know. In my view, I'm less bothered about the notion that she violated the law by leaking secret information as I am that she did so impulsively and without care about who she handed that information over to. She's probably a good person, but her lack of care, not the fact she technically violated the law, is a greater concern here.
It may not go to zero, but I suspect it'll go very low and have very niche usage. Bitcoin is not scaling. It's hampered by the very features that its designers thought made it more robust - the requirement for a consensus of miners, and the entire mining concept with its implied permanent deflation. It needs major modifications to work, and there's no short term incentive amongst those who control it to agree to those modifications.
I think BTC is best seen as an interesting prototype built by people who knew more about computing than economics. BTC has mindshare at the moment, but that's solely because it was first. If cryptocurrencies take off, it'll probably be a more smartly designed alternative, probably one whose backers and controllers benefit from its viability as a currency above everything else, and who have no incentive to fix the markets.
More likely, we'll continue to use Visa and Mastercard the way we always have done, and forget using intermediate currencies, unless we're doing something illegal.
I'm 100% certain Manning's heart is in the right place. But she's impulsive in a dangerous way, politically inexperienced, and has proven herself a bad judge of character in terms of who she allies herself with. I just don't see any good coming out of this.
"You have stated you are not sure you want this message to go out. Do you want to cancel the message? [OK] [Cancel]"
On the other hand, if the enemy has their hands on the real messages, they can periodically create mass panic and also discredit the system at the same time. I don't think there's much you can do about scenarios where the enemy can control the system beyond try to prevent them from controlling the system.
Which is normal. You can commit offenses against law enforcement regardless of whether law enforcement ultimately was justified in being interested in you. Otherwise it'd be a free for all and everyone would be resisting arrest or going into hiding all the time, because they'll only be convicted of anything related to those if they're convicted of whatever crime they're accused of, at which point a small fine for slipping out of your handcuffs isn't going to make much difference.
Also, bear in mind the charges were withdrawn because of the political situation, not because there was no evidence. Assange's behavior made it impossible to interview him in terms the Swedish legal system would recognize as legitimate, so it was impossible to proceed with the case. That's a far cry from them being withdrawn because there wasn't a case or the witnesses recanted or were proven lying.
He absolutely should be prosecuted for those offenses related to going into hiding. He knew there would be consequences in doing so.
Just to be clear, this is 100% speculation, and is probably mostly incorrect. There's no advantage at all to the US in involving Sweden in this. The extradition treaty the UK has (not to mention the political relationship between the two) is far stronger, and if the same allegations had been made by people in Britain against Assange (ie if the aim is to convict Assange of an imprisonable offense to get him out of the way) it would be just as likely to be successful. British prisons are probably worse than Sweden's too.
That'd be a better solution if and only if you didn't lose functionality by doing so. The reason for many of those JS libraries is to make the desktop website fully functional. AMP is specifically for single article type posts.
The article is (as of 2:33pm ET) about employees being unaware of their employer's security issues. Maybe you should RTFA before telling others to do so?
It's the prefixes that bother me, I can never remember them, b for boolean I guess makes sense, but when you have names like 'rgbIsAlphaPixel' or 'pcCode' then it's just hard to read.
You could try going for a real carrier rather than a toy cellphone company whose service sounds like it's delivered through a rubber hose, and that only sells locked down toy cellphones.
Try at&t or T-Mobile. They sell the real thing.
1. No, a web page cannot "own" your system. SPECTRE has a proof of concept that'd allow a Javascript program to be able to read data in the same process. It's almost impossible to exploit, but, sure, if you can, you might possibly find that downloading a rogue JS file could copy your bank website's session cookie, if you're not running a recent version of Firefox or Chrome. But nothing SPECTRE allows will allow your computer to be modified in any way.
2. The discussion here is about kernel patches, which are related to MELTDOWN, not SPECTRE. Meltdown cannot be exploited using Javascript. It requires binaries. If you don't run AWS style services, then your current level of security is unlikely to be made worse by Meltdown. And like SPECTRE, MELTDOWN is read only, although in theory it could leak passwords that could allow someone else to hack into your system if it's not properly firewalled.
There are two bugs here:
Meltdown is Intel-only and requires the ability to run binaries on the victim's computer. If you can run binaries on the victim's computer, you probably already have enough access to do whatever it is you want to do that made you want to hack them in the first place. The extent to which Meltdown adds security issues is miniscule.
Spectre is cross platform and can be exploited with Javascript. With difficulty. But it can. Kinda. There's sorta a proof of concept out there. Which works with one JS engine. And doesn't extract any useful information. But in theory if you know the exact status of the user's browser and you're very lucky you might be able to extract some information from it that you wouldn't normally have access to.
So, what is the rush here? Especially with Meltdown?
The entire fucking industry has gone completely nuts. You'd think that we were back in the 1990s with no memory protection and ActiveX given the panic about this.
And before anyone goes "Yeah, but it's still a problem", so are kernel patches that brick computers. We're bricking computers, and slowing down the ones we don't brick, because we're panicking over this rather than doing this properly.
Has anyone blamed Clinton for this one yet? I know she's not in power, but she's the go-to for conspiracy theories concerning this kind of thing.
So the solution is for websites to just create reduced versions of themselves for mobile use? Maybe sticking to a subset of HTML, using minimal JS, that kind of thing?
Perhaps someone could put together a framework and maybe even a standard to make it easier for web designers to follow. That way they'd be able to comply with it easily, and know immediately if they're adding too much stuff.
We could call it... I don't know... something to do with accelerated mobile web pages... what about Web Acceleration for Terrestrial Transfer. WATT. Or View-Only Lightweight Transmissions. VOLT. Or... I got it! Accelerated Mobile Pages, AMP.
Why not just using the existing one? Or even the existing infrastructure? If the SSID is called open.starbucks.com, the protocol could involve the same kind of certificate as you'd use to sign a website https // open.starbucks.com
All that's needed is the protocol. The who-owns-what bit's already done.
There's nothing magical about EOs and related executive statements and, yes, Congress has a right to review them and state explicitly that Congress's vision of the law conflicts with the executive's: Executive orders et al are how the executive enforces the laws Congress passes. The mechanism to overturn them exists to ensure the law is interpreted as per the branch of government that writes it, not the group tasked with enforcing it.
What you're essentially saying should happen is: Trump's FCC issues a policy statement indicating it'll circumvent the law by pretending Internet services are not general common carrier communication services, so Congress should pass another law that the FCC can then... ignore by pretending Internet services are not general common carrier communication services.
No. If Trump or the FCC or anyone else that's tasked with enforcing a law decides to willfully interpret the law in a manner opposite to that intended, Congress should use the tools available to force it to follow the law. Passing more laws wouldn't help.