When Windows auto-updates go horribly wrong, almost all users blame the h/w vendor, not Microsoft. So Lenovo uses this BIOS trick to protect their reputation. Why is this being depicted as malicious behaviour?
Do you work for Lenovo or are you just stoned?
This has nothing to do with protecting their reputation. This is a "We are installing really nasty spyware on your computer that you don't want and if you try and do a clean install we're going to install it again anyway". http://www.ign.com/articles/20...
I will never buy a Lenovo product, nor recommend one to any of my clients.
Reacting quicker to publicly released information is not illegal, no matter how much you personally hate high frequency trading - just because you ensure you have an advantage in the speed of reaction over other people doesn't make it insider trading. Lets say that HFT is banned, reacting to releases before other traders can still net you a huge advantage, even if you are only allowed one trade a second or minute. Its that first trade (either sale or purchase) at current market prices which can make your profit.
So HFT is banned, releases are via email or direct notification and all trades have to be manually entered - how quickly does the press release reach your inbox, how quickly can you type, what if your email or notification server is backlogged, how quickly can someone scan a release for the relevant details (should I buy or sell?), and how quickly can you enter those details into the system.
There are always ways to shave time off of reactions, no matter what approach you take.
The difference being barriers to entry. If anyone could set up in a market colo and trade then it would be a level playing field. As it is, you have trading houses that have the licenses and so can HFT and everyone else is locked out.
No such barriers to entry exist for the other information release mechanisms that you list.
high frequency trading isn't investing. in fact anything after the initial sale of the stock by the business is no longer investing in the company. it is just trading.
After the initial IPO the only way a company directly benefits from stock is when they go to borrow money. all those regulations and headaches just means you are giving away pieces of your company to people who want to strip mine the cash reserves, liquidate the assets and move on.
however with a good cash flow a business doesn't need that equity, and can get loans as needed. So why do they need to risk losing their business?
It's a question of quantity of money. If you need a few thousand dollars, your plan is good. If you want to compete against already existing big companies or very/extremely rich people you're going to have trouble as they have millions to use that you don't (i.e. R&D, infrastructure, marketing, salaries, etc). Good luck getting a ten million dollar (or whatever) loan from a bank that would let you compete.
Even with great cash flow a non-market financed business is going to start more slowly and grow more slowly than a market financed business, as the market financed business can get huge amounts of money very quickly during the IPO (or subsequent issue).
Investor confidence also plays into this - the more confidence people have, the more they're willing to buy your stock for, the more money you have to do whatever you want (vertical or horizontal expansion, buy out the competition, etc.).
Once your company is big enough (read 'low risk enough') then you can sell bonds which are the loans that you might be thinking of. They're also traded of course so that doesn't change much against stocks.
As far as control, and how to keep it, there are different ways. You can hold on to 51 or more percent of the voting stock and/or issue stock that doesn't have voting rights.
"Saudi Arabia general manager Majed Abukhater says that while his office doesn’t keep precise gender data, observation and anecdotal evidence suggest that 70% to 90% of Saudi Uber riders are women."
This article is a pro-Uber bunch of marketing bullshit. Uber isn't changing anything for women in Saudi.
It is a sad joke when it actually represents how formulaic business management has become Blame predecessor and cronies Build wall of well-paid sycophants Receive bonus Blame organization Reorganize Receive bonus Blame employees Outsource Receive bonus . . . Rinse and Repeat at next company
Could add 'sell proprietary technology to highest bidder (China cough)' to make huge short term profits with lasting negative impact that the CEO will never see
Except this drone was neither violating the law nor common sense.
Slavery was legal and many educated people of the time would no doubt have argued that it was common sense to own slaves.
There should be a law about flying drones over non-public property, or property that you don't own or have right of use of. Just because the politicians haven't got around to making one doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
obviously you have no clue about the rest of the story.
his daughters saw it flying around the neighborhood, he went and grabbed his gun and WAITED for it to be above his property. and yeah it was above his property for 22 seconds. it was flying for a while before that... your vision isn't limited by your property lines, and it only hovered above his property for 22 seconds but was flying for a while before that. This guy is obviously paranoid... and took a shoot first ask questions later perspective. i'm sure his neighbors appreciate him shooting into the sky at anything that doesn't look normal. I wonder if he'd shoot a humming bird because it hovers for 20 seconds? I wonder what would happen to the stray bird shot that hit the neighbors house. will he pay for any damages or injuries caused by that?
It could be an ISIS humming bird you know..
Do you have any idea what 22 seconds of naked, almost naked or even completely clothed but maybe going to get naked girl next door porn is worth to a teenager?
What does that have to do with anything? It's still shooting at something that's not causing any problems in spite of speculation. I don't go around smacking cell phones out of peoples hands because I think they're taking pictures of me. It's about the same thing.
There are places where people will physically assault you if they think you've taken their picture (think countries where guys and girls being together is punishable by flogging or worse), so your analogy isn't as farfetched as it might sound.
Also, if someone is hovering a drone near my house I would automatically assume invasion of privacy.
If you want your drone to stay in one piece, don't fly it over someone else's property.
If you bike while surrounded by these steel caches, yes biking while drunk is going to be a serious danger. Your lack of reflexes and attention might end you up painting red the front bumper of some gaz guzzler.
If you live in Europe, there's a high chance that you bike on separate bike lanes, where you mostly only encounter other bikes (with drunken or sober bikers on them). At worst, you'll get some scratches and bruises if you managed to collide into another biker as drunk as you are.
Biking while drunk is a lot safer than driving while drunk, and provides a safer way of transportation when you want to have a few drings before going home. - A breathalyzer bike lock would just discourage people using this "safer-while-drunk" transportation device when drunk. - Building separate bike lanes would let drunks drive only among other bikers, no car arround, and thus give a safer solution to drive home while drunk. (compared to use a car while drunk, for example).
(Of course, eventually, self-driving cars will render the whole point moot, eventually...)
A 82kg (179 pound) typical weight male on a bike is traveling at a typical biking speed of 15.5 km/h (9.6 mph) and, due to being drunk, fails to stop before riding head on into an oncoming bicyclist in the bike lanes.
How much damage does this do to the innocent party?
If you're drunk get a fucking taxi and if you can't afford the taxi then don't get drunk.
More important than having a backup is having a backup that isn't also encrypted. Cryptolocker takes some time before it reveals itself, so if you do things normally (backup to external drive of sorts), you have to go back to an old backup and lose everything you created since then. Backups on drives which are in reach of Cryptolocker are useless because they're also encrypted, so you might even have lost backups from before your computer got infected. A proper backup routine requires a secondary machine which reads from the host and writes to a drive which is at most read-only accessible to the host. At the moment, that would give you a working recent backup, but obviously Cryptolocker could detect this and not decrypt the data for the backup agent. Then you'd also need to check the validity of the data on the backup system.
Which is why I said 'put aside' and 'offsite' and off-offsite' and 'over time' - all of which are unreachable by Cryptolocker as they're not connected to the system after the backup is taken.
With the schema I described you have a minimum of 25 full backups of various times from one day to however many years you feel like backing up. Nothing that was backed up before the cryptolocker got in would be lost.
Nice, self-serving BS. There is absolutely no point in explaining anything to you as you are convinced you already have the absolute truth, while you clearly do not even understand the basics. I encourage you to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect though, and try to understand what it means to be on the left side of the graph.
I am not convinced that I know the absolute truth (should such a thing even exist). Hell I could even be wrong and I'd love to learn from whatever you could teach me. I invited you to explain your point to me.
As I suspected from reading your other posts, you were unable to actually put forth anything to substantiate your casually obnoxious statement.
Maybe you're right and I have a complete lack of understanding here.
Maybe,
Personally I think you opened your mouth and said something that you are incompetent to deliver on.
My qualifications include the CCIE and the JNCIE, both very low number and neither of them paper, though you probably don't know what I mean by that. Look it up.
I've spent more than twenty years in securing networks and supporting infrastructure for customers including but not limited to ISPs, banks and phone companies.
Incidentally, lack of any detailed and coherent response from you will only confirm that you are just another overly arrogant and obnoxious person on this website whose mouth spits out comments that they make out of ignorance and cannot actually back up with anything substantial.
I used to buy all of the media I consumed. It seemed to be the right thing to do.
Now they say I can't rip the media I bought to use it when and where I want. I'm infringing simply by watching it where I work and on my way to work (oil rig, hotel on the way).
A treaty from another country gets to write my country's laws? And we don't have any say in it?
I am so sickened by all this that I stopped purchasing media. It only funds these assholes. I have no respect for copyright any more. Why should I? There is no respect for the consumer any more. I'm a freetard now.
Slashdot Mirror
When Windows auto-updates go horribly wrong, almost all users blame the h/w vendor, not Microsoft. So Lenovo uses this BIOS trick to protect their reputation. Why is this being depicted as malicious behaviour?
Do you work for Lenovo or are you just stoned?
This has nothing to do with protecting their reputation. This is a "We are installing really nasty spyware on your computer that you don't want and if you try and do a clean install we're going to install it again anyway".
http://www.ign.com/articles/20...
I will never buy a Lenovo product, nor recommend one to any of my clients.
Reacting quicker to publicly released information is not illegal, no matter how much you personally hate high frequency trading - just because you ensure you have an advantage in the speed of reaction over other people doesn't make it insider trading. Lets say that HFT is banned, reacting to releases before other traders can still net you a huge advantage, even if you are only allowed one trade a second or minute. Its that first trade (either sale or purchase) at current market prices which can make your profit.
So HFT is banned, releases are via email or direct notification and all trades have to be manually entered - how quickly does the press release reach your inbox, how quickly can you type, what if your email or notification server is backlogged, how quickly can someone scan a release for the relevant details (should I buy or sell?), and how quickly can you enter those details into the system.
There are always ways to shave time off of reactions, no matter what approach you take.
The difference being barriers to entry. If anyone could set up in a market colo and trade then it would be a level playing field. As it is, you have trading houses that have the licenses and so can HFT and everyone else is locked out.
No such barriers to entry exist for the other information release mechanisms that you list.
high frequency trading isn't investing. in fact anything after the initial sale of the stock by the business is no longer investing in the company. it is just trading.
After the initial IPO the only way a company directly benefits from stock is when they go to borrow money. all those regulations and headaches just means you are giving away pieces of your company to people who want to strip mine the cash reserves, liquidate the assets and move on.
however with a good cash flow a business doesn't need that equity, and can get loans as needed. So why do they need to risk losing their business?
It's a question of quantity of money. If you need a few thousand dollars, your plan is good. If you want to compete against already existing big companies or very/extremely rich people you're going to have trouble as they have millions to use that you don't (i.e. R&D, infrastructure, marketing, salaries, etc). Good luck getting a ten million dollar (or whatever) loan from a bank that would let you compete.
Even with great cash flow a non-market financed business is going to start more slowly and grow more slowly than a market financed business, as the market financed business can get huge amounts of money very quickly during the IPO (or subsequent issue).
Investor confidence also plays into this - the more confidence people have, the more they're willing to buy your stock for, the more money you have to do whatever you want (vertical or horizontal expansion, buy out the competition, etc.).
Once your company is big enough (read 'low risk enough') then you can sell bonds which are the loans that you might be thinking of. They're also traded of course so that doesn't change much against stocks.
As far as control, and how to keep it, there are different ways. You can hold on to 51 or more percent of the voting stock and/or issue stock that doesn't have voting rights.
Nice writeup, thanks -
"Does that make her a qualified Presidential candidate, or a criminal?"
Is there a difference?
Yes nerf the fucking world cause life should be without risk?
I assume this the biggest issue where you live? if not grow up
Have to love AC postings by idiots who don't even have the courage to post under their login.
Gotta love the anti alcohol crowd around here. Or does MADD have paid shill posters now since they're a prohibitionist group these days?
Sure I'm so anti-alcohol that I probably still have enough in my bloodstream now from last night to fail a test.
I am, however, against drinking and driving anything off your own private property.
No one had to pay me to post my own opinion. You don't like it - too bad for you. Deal with it.
"Saudi Arabia general manager Majed Abukhater says that while his office doesn’t keep precise gender data, observation and anecdotal evidence suggest that 70% to 90% of Saudi Uber riders are women."
This article is a pro-Uber bunch of marketing bullshit. Uber isn't changing anything for women in Saudi.
*Thus posting as AC.
Oops?
Re:keep honest people safe (Score:5, Insightful)
by SuricouRaven (1897204)
Get some help.
It is a sad joke when it actually represents how formulaic business management has become
Blame predecessor and cronies
Build wall of well-paid sycophants
Receive bonus
Blame organization
Reorganize
Receive bonus
Blame employees
Outsource
Receive bonus
.
.
.
Rinse and Repeat at next company
Could add 'sell proprietary technology to highest bidder (China cough)' to make huge short term profits with lasting negative impact that the CEO will never see
Except this drone was neither violating the law nor common sense.
Slavery was legal and many educated people of the time would no doubt have argued that it was common sense to own slaves.
There should be a law about flying drones over non-public property, or property that you don't own or have right of use of. Just because the politicians haven't got around to making one doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
obviously you have no clue about the rest of the story.
his daughters saw it flying around the neighborhood, he went and grabbed his gun and WAITED for it to be above his property. and yeah it was above his property for 22 seconds. it was flying for a while before that... your vision isn't limited by your property lines, and it only hovered above his property for 22 seconds but was flying for a while before that. This guy is obviously paranoid... and took a shoot first ask questions later perspective. i'm sure his neighbors appreciate him shooting into the sky at anything that doesn't look normal. I wonder if he'd shoot a humming bird because it hovers for 20 seconds? I wonder what would happen to the stray bird shot that hit the neighbors house. will he pay for any damages or injuries caused by that?
It could be an ISIS humming bird you know..
Do you have any idea what 22 seconds of naked, almost naked or even completely clothed but maybe going to get naked girl next door porn is worth to a teenager?
What does that have to do with anything? It's still shooting at something that's not causing any problems in spite of speculation. I don't go around smacking cell phones out of peoples hands because I think they're taking pictures of me. It's about the same thing.
There are places where people will physically assault you if they think you've taken their picture (think countries where guys and girls being together is punishable by flogging or worse), so your analogy isn't as farfetched as it might sound.
Also, if someone is hovering a drone near my house I would automatically assume invasion of privacy.
If you want your drone to stay in one piece, don't fly it over someone else's property.
The 2000lbs steel cages are the problem.
If you bike while surrounded by these steel caches, yes biking while drunk is going to be a serious danger. Your lack of reflexes and attention might end you up painting red the front bumper of some gaz guzzler.
If you live in Europe, there's a high chance that you bike on separate bike lanes, where you mostly only encounter other bikes (with drunken or sober bikers on them). At worst, you'll get some scratches and bruises if you managed to collide into another biker as drunk as you are.
Biking while drunk is a lot safer than driving while drunk, and provides a safer way of transportation when you want to have a few drings before going home.
- A breathalyzer bike lock would just discourage people using this "safer-while-drunk" transportation device when drunk.
- Building separate bike lanes would let drunks drive only among other bikers, no car arround, and thus give a safer solution to drive home while drunk. (compared to use a car while drunk, for example).
(Of course, eventually, self-driving cars will render the whole point moot, eventually...)
A 82kg (179 pound) typical weight male on a bike is traveling at a typical biking speed of 15.5 km/h (9.6 mph) and, due to being drunk, fails to stop before riding head on into an oncoming bicyclist in the bike lanes.
How much damage does this do to the innocent party?
If you're drunk get a fucking taxi and if you can't afford the taxi then don't get drunk.
Had a quick google and evidently 1 pint of Coca Cola has a few more calories than...a pint of Guinness!
It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to MD5 / SHA / whatever hash every file of the types that are targeted - a la tripwire.
Do such solutions exist for the various targeted OSs?
More important than having a backup is having a backup that isn't also encrypted. Cryptolocker takes some time before it reveals itself, so if you do things normally (backup to external drive of sorts), you have to go back to an old backup and lose everything you created since then. Backups on drives which are in reach of Cryptolocker are useless because they're also encrypted, so you might even have lost backups from before your computer got infected. A proper backup routine requires a secondary machine which reads from the host and writes to a drive which is at most read-only accessible to the host. At the moment, that would give you a working recent backup, but obviously Cryptolocker could detect this and not decrypt the data for the backup agent. Then you'd also need to check the validity of the data on the backup system.
Which is why I said 'put aside' and 'offsite' and off-offsite' and 'over time' - all of which are unreachable by Cryptolocker as they're not connected to the system after the backup is taken.
With the schema I described you have a minimum of 25 full backups of various times from one day to however many years you feel like backing up. Nothing that was backed up before the cryptolocker got in would be lost.
Backup in depth:
'real time' (ie Apple's time machine)
+ Daily
+ Weekly (put aside)
+ Monthly (stored offsite)
+ Yearly (stored off-offsite)
Nice, self-serving BS. There is absolutely no point in explaining anything to you as you are convinced you already have the absolute truth, while you clearly do not even understand the basics. I encourage you to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect though, and try to understand what it means to be on the left side of the graph.
I am not convinced that I know the absolute truth (should such a thing even exist). Hell I could even be wrong and I'd love to learn from whatever you could teach me. I invited you to explain your point to me.
As I suspected from reading your other posts, you were unable to actually put forth anything to substantiate your casually obnoxious statement.
Maybe you're right and I have a complete lack of understanding here.
Maybe,
Personally I think you opened your mouth and said something that you are incompetent to deliver on.
My qualifications include the CCIE and the JNCIE, both very low number and neither of them paper, though you probably don't know what I mean by that. Look it up.
I've spent more than twenty years in securing networks and supporting infrastructure for customers including but not limited to ISPs, banks and phone companies.
Have a nice day :-)
"But no one knew. "
That you know of.
Are you not making an assumption that an entity like the NSA, had they known, would have shared their findings with the vendor or make it public?
And when the phone is updating you can barely use it.
Have you considered upgrading your hardware? :-)
Incidentally, lack of any detailed and coherent response from you will only confirm that you are just another overly arrogant and obnoxious person on this website whose mouth spits out comments that they make out of ignorance and cannot actually back up with anything substantial.
No, it cannot. It does require a complete lack of understanding how networks can and cannot be protected to make such a claim however.
Is that so?
Since you are confident enough to make such a statement, I invite you to explain why it is not possible.
You would think... except many of those media companies are themselves owned by multi-nationals that dwarf Microsoft and Google put together.
Doesn't seem so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Unless you have other references to share?
I used to buy all of the media I consumed. It seemed to be the right thing to do.
Now they say I can't rip the media I bought to use it when and where I want. I'm infringing simply by watching it where I work and on my way to work (oil rig, hotel on the way).
A treaty from another country gets to write my country's laws? And we don't have any say in it?
I am so sickened by all this that I stopped purchasing media. It only funds these assholes. I have no respect for copyright any more. Why should I? There is no respect for the consumer any more. I'm a freetard now.
In Soviet China IP owns you!