That's not as convincing as you might think... it not only proposes spelling implies pronunciation, but simply as an excuse for why a dimwit might pronounce nuclear as nucular. Hi George!
I'll buy the spelling went ax -> ask, but that doesn't definitively mean it was pronounced axe.
You need a connection from one unrelated server, that doesn't even have to run the distribution you're maintaining the repo for, not the entire fleet... there's a significant difference in the ability to farm information there.
Assuming you don't trust your binaries, and hence you feel there's some opportunity to open a back door, there's not. The transmission from Vendor => Repo Mirror is two-way, the transmission of Repo Mirror => Clients is/entirely/ under your own control, and the Clients can't magically create networking paths that don't exist just because a new binary would like one.
I don't think you understand the term "air-gapped".
Unsafe is a term designed to have flexibility to be determined by a judge.
Yet here you are, blaming the bus...
And in a different post...
You haven't really thought this through. The end result of this logic is that any hill-billy in a pick-up will simple charge on through anytime they see a nerd in a Google-mobile. While that may be a technically safer option it isn't sustainable. The unwritten rules of the road is that sometimes you have be prepared to hold your ground. I can't imagine that any AI capable of that will be legal.
...here you are suggesting that the problem with the AI is that it can't legally be impatient like a human, implying you would have went in front of the bus same as the safety driver.
Your own reasoning suggests that if a child rushes onto the road between cars, we should charge you with vehicular manslaughter since pedestrians always have the right of way.
Ok, one last bite. When did I suggest that/any/ of this was a factual statement? You just cherry-picked a sub-sentence out of a post, out of a broader context, and then ridiculed the result.
In fact, it was an example of how people misread and misunderstand the law, and in fact as you say make stupid shit up all the time, pass it around, and think that repetition makes it fact. Worse, some of those people are police officers.
You go right ahead and continue your rant, it's entertaining. Doesn't matter if your shouting at the right target or not.
No darling, my point was all these "well understood laws" are not as well understood as most people think, and certainly not as clear cut.
In the same way as a series of jackasses are convinced the Google car is automatically 100% at fault, the "pedestrians have the right of way" fallacy would mean anyone striking one dead is guilty of manslaughter 100% of the time.
Maybe read for context and get that burr out of your ass, or you know, just stop being a cunt.
Your own reasoning suggests that if a child rushes onto the road between cars, we should charge you with vehicular manslaughter since pedestrians always have the right of way.
Unsafe is a term designed to have flexibility to be determined by a judge. In the same way that "it's never your fault if you're rear ended", it's common wisdom that's incorrect.
At 2MPH and 15MPH it's at best a shared fault, and more likely the bus to blame. i.e. you don't have the right to plow into cars you can avoid because they venture into your lane.
Here's some facts... a whole page of trend lines from a respected government authority all of them trending up.
To be fair though, it's pretty hard not to go right to the insults when you've had the discussion a thousand times before and the opposition has the same level of argument as a chimp flinging it's faeces at you.
But you know, all arguments need equal consideration, so once you're done refuting my theory that global warming is really caused by The Fonz losing his cool, we can look at yours again.
Add to this, when you're talking about a carrier like Digicel, that services what are basically third world markets, your data allowance is exhausted by loading one mobile ad. That's the reason they're blocking at the carrier level.. their customers aren't going to give them money to load 1/2 a web page.
That's the same theory that says OpenSSL was never full of security holes because it was open source and everyone in the world could check it. Any vulnerabilities you have seen of late are just products of your fevered imagination.
In any case, that's an awfully tall straw man you've set up. You're asking "someone" to do a lot of work to find out what MS are collecting at the moment, far beyond "decency".
People are, generally, likely to think MS are trustworthy because they have skin in the game (as do I). However, they see more value in making discovering what telemetry they're interested in difficult, than in shutting down the conspiracy theorists by being open about it. I find that in itself interesting.
But hey, I don't really care. Not only did I opt out of what I could, but block the servers they collect telemetry on entirely via an external firewall they can't control, since opting out doesn't opt out. That's interesting too.
I think the decency hurdle is MS's to fall over, and describing yourself as sceptical is deliciously ironic.
nobody has the decency to show that something more harmful than anonymous telemetry gets sent.
Yeah, how? Given it's all encrypted with MS's public key, how do you know it's only telemetry? How can I prove it's not?
Now, if MS logged what they sent locally in clear text packets, I could use their public key to encrypt the packet and prove that it was only that data they claimed travelling over the wire.
MS has not chosen to make that available, hence they are the ones who are choosing to allow this to remain an issue.
Proxying HTTPS is non-trivial, unless "the right stuff" is access to a certificate authority or users that are stupid enough to accept bad certificates.
You might be thinking Blue Coat or the like, but that only works because you install your signing certificate on all the clients...
Slashdot Mirror
That's not as convincing as you might think... it not only proposes spelling implies pronunciation, but simply as an excuse for why a dimwit might pronounce nuclear as nucular. Hi George!
I'll buy the spelling went ax -> ask, but that doesn't definitively mean it was pronounced axe.
Eschew obfuscation.
[citation needed]
Well, this is either a complete fabrication or someone is selling PCI audit stickers for $100. I can guarantee PWC isn't charging $100...
I can give you a degree from Kenosis University for $100 too.
You need a connection from one unrelated server, that doesn't even have to run the distribution you're maintaining the repo for, not the entire fleet... there's a significant difference in the ability to farm information there.
Assuming you don't trust your binaries, and hence you feel there's some opportunity to open a back door, there's not. The transmission from Vendor => Repo Mirror is two-way, the transmission of Repo Mirror => Clients is /entirely/ under your own control, and the Clients can't magically create networking paths that don't exist just because a new binary would like one.
I don't think you understand the term "air-gapped".
Repos aren't "home", they can even be air-gapped from the internet if you're paranoid or have some other challenging networking.
Unsafe is a term designed to have flexibility to be determined by a judge.
Yet here you are, blaming the bus...
And in a different post...
You haven't really thought this through. The end result of this logic is that any hill-billy in a pick-up will simple charge on through anytime they see a nerd in a Google-mobile. While that may be a technically safer option it isn't sustainable. The unwritten rules of the road is that sometimes you have be prepared to hold your ground. I can't imagine that any AI capable of that will be legal.
...here you are suggesting that the problem with the AI is that it can't legally be impatient like a human, implying you would have went in front of the bus same as the safety driver.
Of course I'm wasting my time; This is Slashdot! /kicks Persian into a Poll
Your own reasoning suggests that if a child rushes onto the road between cars, we should charge you with vehicular manslaughter since pedestrians always have the right of way.
Ok, one last bite. When did I suggest that /any/ of this was a factual statement? You just cherry-picked a sub-sentence out of a post, out of a broader context, and then ridiculed the result.
In fact, it was an example of how people misread and misunderstand the law, and in fact as you say make stupid shit up all the time, pass it around, and think that repetition makes it fact. Worse, some of those people are police officers.
You go right ahead and continue your rant, it's entertaining. Doesn't matter if your shouting at the right target or not.
No darling, my point was all these "well understood laws" are not as well understood as most people think, and certainly not as clear cut.
In the same way as a series of jackasses are convinced the Google car is automatically 100% at fault, the "pedestrians have the right of way" fallacy would mean anyone striking one dead is guilty of manslaughter 100% of the time.
Maybe read for context and get that burr out of your ass, or you know, just stop being a cunt.
That's exactly my point, jackass.
Your own reasoning suggests that if a child rushes onto the road between cars, we should charge you with vehicular manslaughter since pedestrians always have the right of way.
The law is not binary.
You don't need both, either one will do. Just Google "comparative negligence rear-end" there's plenty written about it on law blogs and the like.
Unsafe is a term designed to have flexibility to be determined by a judge. In the same way that "it's never your fault if you're rear ended", it's common wisdom that's incorrect.
No it didn't.
At 2MPH and 15MPH it's at best a shared fault, and more likely the bus to blame. i.e. you don't have the right to plow into cars you can avoid because they venture into your lane.
Here's some facts... a whole page of trend lines from a respected government authority all of them trending up.
To be fair though, it's pretty hard not to go right to the insults when you've had the discussion a thousand times before and the opposition has the same level of argument as a chimp flinging it's faeces at you.
But you know, all arguments need equal consideration, so once you're done refuting my theory that global warming is really caused by The Fonz losing his cool, we can look at yours again.
If the French courts find the accounting methodology Google are using is not legal, it may well be tax evasion.
At that point you're talking punitive fines, not just interest assessments.
Google have good lawyers though, I'm sure they'll be fine...
Trolling or clueless. The AI challenge of the next millennium.
Add to this, when you're talking about a carrier like Digicel, that services what are basically third world markets, your data allowance is exhausted by loading one mobile ad. That's the reason they're blocking at the carrier level.. their customers aren't going to give them money to load 1/2 a web page.
That's the same theory that says OpenSSL was never full of security holes because it was open source and everyone in the world could check it. Any vulnerabilities you have seen of late are just products of your fevered imagination.
In any case, that's an awfully tall straw man you've set up. You're asking "someone" to do a lot of work to find out what MS are collecting at the moment, far beyond "decency".
People are, generally, likely to think MS are trustworthy because they have skin in the game (as do I). However, they see more value in making discovering what telemetry they're interested in difficult, than in shutting down the conspiracy theorists by being open about it. I find that in itself interesting.
But hey, I don't really care. Not only did I opt out of what I could, but block the servers they collect telemetry on entirely via an external firewall they can't control, since opting out doesn't opt out. That's interesting too.
I think the decency hurdle is MS's to fall over, and describing yourself as sceptical is deliciously ironic.
nobody has the decency to show that something more harmful than anonymous telemetry gets sent.
Yeah, how? Given it's all encrypted with MS's public key, how do you know it's only telemetry? How can I prove it's not?
Now, if MS logged what they sent locally in clear text packets, I could use their public key to encrypt the packet and prove that it was only that data they claimed travelling over the wire.
MS has not chosen to make that available, hence they are the ones who are choosing to allow this to remain an issue.
EV is sold to CTOs that are managers but not technical or even aware how customers think.
There's no technical security advantage, at all.
There might be a customer advantage if they even knew what an EV cert was, but they don't, and if you try to explain it to them, they don't care.
Proxying HTTPS is non-trivial, unless "the right stuff" is access to a certificate authority or users that are stupid enough to accept bad certificates.
You might be thinking Blue Coat or the like, but that only works because you install your signing certificate on all the clients...
Which is entertaining, in that I've been using Linux for work (servers) for 20 years and do all of it through putty.
That was horrible. Who is the audience for that crap?