Many US presidents in those 225 years were pretty boring and ineffectual, in part because the federal government mattered very little to most people's lives.
But the "hate from other countries" will never stop. European intellectuals have hated America pretty much since America was founded. Nothing the US does will ever change that.
I found it fascinating when Obama made these claims -- that he was going to review and fix the entire NSA program any day now and that Snowden just forced him to do it in a rush instead of carefully.
I think it's become clear that you can't believe anything Obama says. That's not "fascinating", it's deeply disturbing in the top executive of our government. The president is supposed to be boring, honest, and careful; instead, we got an activist and a liar.
This all dates back to the early days on PCs (even before PC and x86 were synonymous). DMA = Direct Memory Access and the old IBM PC and other PCs of that era had it. Mainframes in the '70s had a similar concept.
For regular DMA, arbitrary external devices can't just initiate DMA to anywhere in memory; when, where, how, and if, is under CPU control.
Most built-in graphics use 'shared memory' meaning that their memory is a reserved chunk of main memory.
That's fine, but it doesn't contain instructions, and which part of memory is shared is again under CPU control.
Practically all phones are ARM based and ARM supports JTAG
AFAIK, JTAG can be disabled under CPU control.
If the baseband can see main memory, it doesn't have to have it's own private memory on the SOC. If it can see the sound card, it doesn't have to have it's own.
If the baseband CPU used the same memory as the main CPU, vulnerability and control would be symmetric, which is not what the article claims.
It makes sense for the baseband and the main CPU to share some memory and I/O resources. Compromising the baseband CPU might allow an attacker to listen in, but that's always been the case.
But the only way I see in which the baseband CPU can corrupt the main CPU is via JTAG. But while some manufacturers might wire the main CPU's JTAG and boot loader to baseband, I'd be surprised if that were universally true. What would be the point? And there are certainly devices where that isn't the case because the only connection between the cellular modem and the main CPU is via USB.
As I was saying, I'd like to see more technical details. Based on the information I have, it's hard to see whether this is a widespread problem, and the people raising alarm over this haven't really explained themselves well enough. (Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of security problems with baseband, and there are many other attacks; the question is whether this particular attack is likely or common.)
No, no citation is needed. I'm not trying to prove this to you, I'm challenging your mindless belief in "expert judgment". And you respond to that by mindlessly repeating the call for more "expert judgment". I do not make decisions based on what "experts" tell me, I make decisions based on what I understand and where I can get evidence. You want government by experts, and I reject that, as do many Americans.
Actually: yes, you do. That is one of the key things a government of the people does.
No, wrong. It's what you want government to do because you want government to maximize number of years lived and minimize risk. You simply fail to realize that other people have other priorities.
You knew damn well I was talking about baby milk with rat poison, sold as food, which would be illegal
Yes, that is obviously the source of your error, I'm glad you realize it. Your argument was about whether the sale of products capable of causing death should be restricted, not whether the labeling of dangerous objects should be regulated. By giving an example where legality depends on product labeling rather than the capability of a product to cause death, you failed to support your argument.
Considering the total lack of evidence provided for your statements and the irrelevance of those statements, it seemed like the proper response.
Our primary point of disagreement is not about facts, it's about values. You want to impose your values (maximizing life span, minimizing risk) on everybody else, and other people disagree with that. That is neither a function of government, or is it something you have a right to do.
Furthermore, frequently, achieving your preferences has enough negative consequences that you yourself probably wouldn't want to achieve them if you actually were capable of thinking it through. But that I don't even care about as much; you're welcome to screw up your life in whatever way you like, it's a free country. But I don't want you to screw up my life with your dumb choices.
Let me refresh your memory: "It matters because it shows that you don't know the fuck what you're talking about and obviously don't care."
"Your argument doesn't work because you're an idiot." is an ad hominem. "You're an idiot because your arguments don't work." is an observation. I made the latter.
<sarcasm>Oh, the horror of it! Inventors and entrepreneurs getting rewarded for what they do best, namely come up with new stuff and start companies around that! It must be stopped! If they aren't prepared to spend the next few decades slowly going crazy with day-to-day operations of some boring large corporation, they shouldn't found companies at all!</sarcasm>
If Snapchat has any value at all (given how poor their software seems to be), it's that they are not part of Facebook or Google.
Of course, what this is really about is that Facebook is afraid that people will start communicating using some other platform, so they are trying to buy up and kill any potential competitor.
People aren't earning below the minimum wage (unless they are employed by a company breaking the law) so no they aren't any of those things.
Obviously, I mean "people earning below a proposed minimum wage". Geez, use your head.
Nearly 20% of UK households receive housing benefit. Nothing like 20% of UK households are entirely unemployed so your world view where the only low paid workers are trainees, living with parents or working for shits and giggles is nothing more than a fiction you seemed to have confused with reality.
I don't know how the UK works, and I really don't care; European economies are so broken that anything is possible.
In the US, the majority of minimum wage earners are younger than 24 yo, have no higher education, and work in food service (where they get supplemental income in tips).
And public benefits / welfare are preferable to a higher minimum wage. A higher minimum wage attempts to place the burden of welfare disproportionately on business employing low-wage workers, and they will simply respond by eliminating jobs and/or passing the costs on. If you want to help low-income people, do it via taxation and redistribution, don't try to sneak it in via these kinds of market manipulations. Of course you know full well that people would likely vote against increasing public assistance financed through higher taxes, which is why people like you engage in this kind of deception.
That may be true on some devices, but I seriously doubt it's true on all of them. Clearly, on some devices, the wireless modem is really just a USB-connected modem with no special privileges.
How would that even be implemented in arbitrary hardware? Many CPUs don't have provisions for arbitrary external access to memory.
Do you have any links describing how this is supposed to work?
If the external costs of using fossil fuels were internalized and incorporated in the price they would already be too expensive to use.
By that reasoning, deploying solar and other technologies would be even less competitive, because they create enormous "external costs" during their production.
We should stop subsidizing any and all energy technologies and let the market pick the best choice. Externalities can be accounted for by legal action when necessary.
I think people who say that lack imagination for the possibilities of technological advances.
Funny, that's just what I would say too.
But if you actually believe that, the correct strategy is to let technology and the economy develop unhindered, because it will soon develop cost-effective low-carbon technologies all by itself; and if such technologies really can't be developed and temperatures rise anyway, then technology will help us adapt to them.
It's AGW activists who "lack imagination for the possibilities of technological advances", because they believe that low-carbon technologies will not be able to become cost effective or competitive on their own and therefore require massive government intervention to create, and that technology cannot cope with rising temperatures.
You're confusing social upheaval with environmental change. Environmental and external change causes human societies to progress and evolve.
I don't think you can really call the long steady states of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment "bare survival",
Long steady state??? Just the 30 years war alone, right smack in the middle of that, was a massive upheaval within Europe, depopulating large parts of the continent. It formed the basis for the Enlightenment and radically changed the economy and population of Europe. No realistic climate change scenario comes even close to that kind of devastation in Europe.
The only thing even approaching a period of stability in Europe was the Dark Ages, aptly named; even ending in a period of modest, if stagnant, prosperity. It was brought to an end by the Age of Discovery, famine, war, and the plague. Those radical changes and disruptions then formed the basis for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
or claim that hotspots of social change like the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa are "thriving"
That analogy is just wrong on so many levels. First of all, when there is overall change for the better, not everybody wins. The fall of the Ottoman empire had winners and losers, just like the fall of the British empire. Furthermore, changes in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa right now are the response to radical changes in the worldwide environment in which these societies operate. And those societies are gradually developing and improving, precisely because the old scourges of colonialism and totalitarian rule are being made irrelevant and destroyed by external changes. You're watching the progress in action. It will take decades, if not centuries, for those societies to catch up with the West, but what is happening there is a good thing in the long term.
Progress is restrained in resource-constrained societies,
Attempts to curb global warming clearly reduce resource availability, and in a predictable and serious way. That is why we should not attempt it. It is far more important for societies to progress than to worry about whether the global climate is going to be a few degrees warmer a century from now.
which is what you get during periods of major social upheaval.
Resources are also constrained in stagnant and dysfunctional societies.
If we're going to have social upheaval, I think it should be on our terms, for our reasons, and not the atmosphere's.
Nowhere did I say that we should cause global warming for the purpose of causing social upheaval. I'm just saying that environmental change isn't an intrinsic evil. Functioning societies can adapt to environmental change without social upheaval. Environmental change may cause upheaval in dysfunctional societies, but when it does, the real cause is societal dysfunction, not environmental change.
You think it's going to rise a few degrees and then stop? Without us taking action?
We naturally have to stop burning fossil fuel when we run out of it. Economics will put a stop to it long before then. We probably could burn only about 1/4 of fossil fuels even if we tried.
Explain how the acid level in the ocean ring and killing off the number 1 Oxygen maker is a a good thing.
Ocean acidification has happened many times before.
it's predicted no such thing.
Read carefully: I said "IPCC-predicted temperature increases", not "IPCC predicted temperature increases".
Lastly, the baseband processor is usually the master processor, whereas the application processor (which runs the mobile operating system) is the slave.
I don't know what that's supposed to mean. AFAIK, the wireless modem is just a device from the point of view of Android or iOS. In addition (depending on the phone), it may also have a direct path to the microphone and speaker in order to make "old fashioned" phone calls. Other than that, in what way is it supposed to interact with cameras, memory, or storage, and why?
You think you do, but if you knew more about how the planet operates, you'd know that a warmer planet won't be as pleasant to live in. But screw science, right?
If you knew about science, you'd know that a warmer planet would be a lot more pleasant to live on. But of course, you don't.
and there won't be any periods of instability while hundred-year-old industries and economies adjust to large changes in climate. Right?
IPCC-predicted temperature increases will cause less disruption than the kind of carbon emission reductions that would be necessary to "stabilize" the climate.
That's all absolutely true, but it isn't a flaw of the minimum wage. The minimum wage should be around the level at which someone is earning enough to live a reasonable life in the country without requiring considerable government subsidy
Most people making below minimum wage are effectively trainees, or live with their parents, or use the job as a second job or second income in a family. They don't need to get enough money from a job to "live a reasonable life without government subsidy". By imposing a minimum wage, you simply take away job opportunities that they would otherwise have had.
We'll see more self-service in UK supermarkets whether wages increase or not.
Of course we will. And then other jobs will be below-living-wage jobs. Web design and PC maintenance, for example, will likely become the equivalent of baggers and cart handlers.
Should we drop UK checkout wages by 5% a year to counter-act this and stop check-out jobs being lost?
"We" should simply stop trying to impose price controls; they pretty much always hurt.
Or should we embrace the fact that tens of thousands of people in the UK are capable of being more than glorified barcode scanners, automate that work and employ them doing something more useful for a better wage?
If these people could be getting better jobs, they would already be getting them. Most of them are inexperienced and need a job history and experience before they can get better paying jobs, and that opportunity exactly what you destroy by imposing "living wages".
They'll generally pay whatever is required, within reason, to fill that position. If the minimum wage goes up all those people at the bottom get a raise. If necessary prices go up as well and you get some inflation to compensate but the main effect is a mild wealth transfer to the poor.
That's the sort of reasoning that underlies minimum wage, but there's little evidence it works that way. Individual small businesses making short term plans may "pay whatever is required". That's because businesses don't optimize perfectly and instantly. Long term, however, they do.
European grocery stores already don't have baggers or shopping cart attendants. Raise the cost of hiring further, and you're going to see more self-checkout. Go even higher, and grocery stores are going to move to RFID checkout. Even higher, and they are going to go to stores based on fully robotic warehousing systems.
In the end, it's cheaper for most businesses to (1) either have customers do part of the work (whose time is cheaper than that of a full time employee), or (2) to automate. You don't help people by creating incentives for eliminating their jobs.
If you keep the minimum wage low enough (relative to the rest of the economy), it won't destroy prosperity. It also won't really have much of an effect. As you raise it, you'll get more and more negative consequences.
There is no evidence that a minimum wage helps people at any level. The best one can say about it is that it may not do harm if it's low enough.
But such a subtle change in the sun—lowering its luminosity by about 0.1%—wouldn't be enough to outweigh the build-up of greenhouse gases and soot that most researchers consider the main cause of rising world temperatures over the past century or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody who thinks that it is one nation's job to guard another nation's Western ideals has abandoned those ideals long ago.
Many US presidents in those 225 years were pretty boring and ineffectual, in part because the federal government mattered very little to most people's lives.
Sorry, "careful" was perhaps poorly chosen; I meant "competent", and Carter was anything but.
Whereas European politics is thoroughly corrupt because party power talks in European politics. I'll take money politics over party politics any day.
I agree on shutting down the NSA.
But the "hate from other countries" will never stop. European intellectuals have hated America pretty much since America was founded. Nothing the US does will ever change that.
I think it's become clear that you can't believe anything Obama says. That's not "fascinating", it's deeply disturbing in the top executive of our government. The president is supposed to be boring, honest, and careful; instead, we got an activist and a liar.
For regular DMA, arbitrary external devices can't just initiate DMA to anywhere in memory; when, where, how, and if, is under CPU control.
That's fine, but it doesn't contain instructions, and which part of memory is shared is again under CPU control.
AFAIK, JTAG can be disabled under CPU control.
If the baseband CPU used the same memory as the main CPU, vulnerability and control would be symmetric, which is not what the article claims.
It makes sense for the baseband and the main CPU to share some memory and I/O resources. Compromising the baseband CPU might allow an attacker to listen in, but that's always been the case.
But the only way I see in which the baseband CPU can corrupt the main CPU is via JTAG. But while some manufacturers might wire the main CPU's JTAG and boot loader to baseband, I'd be surprised if that were universally true. What would be the point? And there are certainly devices where that isn't the case because the only connection between the cellular modem and the main CPU is via USB.
As I was saying, I'd like to see more technical details. Based on the information I have, it's hard to see whether this is a widespread problem, and the people raising alarm over this haven't really explained themselves well enough. (Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of security problems with baseband, and there are many other attacks; the question is whether this particular attack is likely or common.)
No, no citation is needed. I'm not trying to prove this to you, I'm challenging your mindless belief in "expert judgment". And you respond to that by mindlessly repeating the call for more "expert judgment". I do not make decisions based on what "experts" tell me, I make decisions based on what I understand and where I can get evidence. You want government by experts, and I reject that, as do many Americans.
No, wrong. It's what you want government to do because you want government to maximize number of years lived and minimize risk. You simply fail to realize that other people have other priorities.
Yes, that is obviously the source of your error, I'm glad you realize it. Your argument was about whether the sale of products capable of causing death should be restricted, not whether the labeling of dangerous objects should be regulated. By giving an example where legality depends on product labeling rather than the capability of a product to cause death, you failed to support your argument.
Our primary point of disagreement is not about facts, it's about values. You want to impose your values (maximizing life span, minimizing risk) on everybody else, and other people disagree with that. That is neither a function of government, or is it something you have a right to do.
Furthermore, frequently, achieving your preferences has enough negative consequences that you yourself probably wouldn't want to achieve them if you actually were capable of thinking it through. But that I don't even care about as much; you're welcome to screw up your life in whatever way you like, it's a free country. But I don't want you to screw up my life with your dumb choices.
"Your argument doesn't work because you're an idiot." is an ad hominem. "You're an idiot because your arguments don't work." is an observation. I made the latter.
<sarcasm>Oh, the horror of it! Inventors and entrepreneurs getting rewarded for what they do best, namely come up with new stuff and start companies around that! It must be stopped! If they aren't prepared to spend the next few decades slowly going crazy with day-to-day operations of some boring large corporation, they shouldn't found companies at all!</sarcasm>
If Snapchat has any value at all (given how poor their software seems to be), it's that they are not part of Facebook or Google.
Of course, what this is really about is that Facebook is afraid that people will start communicating using some other platform, so they are trying to buy up and kill any potential competitor.
Obviously, I mean "people earning below a proposed minimum wage". Geez, use your head.
I don't know how the UK works, and I really don't care; European economies are so broken that anything is possible.
In the US, the majority of minimum wage earners are younger than 24 yo, have no higher education, and work in food service (where they get supplemental income in tips).
And public benefits / welfare are preferable to a higher minimum wage. A higher minimum wage attempts to place the burden of welfare disproportionately on business employing low-wage workers, and they will simply respond by eliminating jobs and/or passing the costs on. If you want to help low-income people, do it via taxation and redistribution, don't try to sneak it in via these kinds of market manipulations. Of course you know full well that people would likely vote against increasing public assistance financed through higher taxes, which is why people like you engage in this kind of deception.
That may be true on some devices, but I seriously doubt it's true on all of them. Clearly, on some devices, the wireless modem is really just a USB-connected modem with no special privileges.
How would that even be implemented in arbitrary hardware? Many CPUs don't have provisions for arbitrary external access to memory.
Do you have any links describing how this is supposed to work?
By that reasoning, deploying solar and other technologies would be even less competitive, because they create enormous "external costs" during their production.
We should stop subsidizing any and all energy technologies and let the market pick the best choice. Externalities can be accounted for by legal action when necessary.
Funny, that's just what I would say too.
But if you actually believe that, the correct strategy is to let technology and the economy develop unhindered, because it will soon develop cost-effective low-carbon technologies all by itself; and if such technologies really can't be developed and temperatures rise anyway, then technology will help us adapt to them.
It's AGW activists who "lack imagination for the possibilities of technological advances", because they believe that low-carbon technologies will not be able to become cost effective or competitive on their own and therefore require massive government intervention to create, and that technology cannot cope with rising temperatures.
You're confusing social upheaval with environmental change. Environmental and external change causes human societies to progress and evolve.
Long steady state??? Just the 30 years war alone, right smack in the middle of that, was a massive upheaval within Europe, depopulating large parts of the continent. It formed the basis for the Enlightenment and radically changed the economy and population of Europe. No realistic climate change scenario comes even close to that kind of devastation in Europe.
The only thing even approaching a period of stability in Europe was the Dark Ages, aptly named; even ending in a period of modest, if stagnant, prosperity. It was brought to an end by the Age of Discovery, famine, war, and the plague. Those radical changes and disruptions then formed the basis for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
That analogy is just wrong on so many levels. First of all, when there is overall change for the better, not everybody wins. The fall of the Ottoman empire had winners and losers, just like the fall of the British empire. Furthermore, changes in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa right now are the response to radical changes in the worldwide environment in which these societies operate. And those societies are gradually developing and improving, precisely because the old scourges of colonialism and totalitarian rule are being made irrelevant and destroyed by external changes. You're watching the progress in action. It will take decades, if not centuries, for those societies to catch up with the West, but what is happening there is a good thing in the long term.
Attempts to curb global warming clearly reduce resource availability, and in a predictable and serious way. That is why we should not attempt it. It is far more important for societies to progress than to worry about whether the global climate is going to be a few degrees warmer a century from now.
Resources are also constrained in stagnant and dysfunctional societies.
Nowhere did I say that we should cause global warming for the purpose of causing social upheaval. I'm just saying that environmental change isn't an intrinsic evil. Functioning societies can adapt to environmental change without social upheaval. Environmental change may cause upheaval in dysfunctional societies, but when it does, the real cause is societal dysfunction, not environmental change.
Stop with such unscientific, stupid fabrications and fear mongering. Long term, warmer temperatures will clearly increase global food production.
Short term, farmers will have to adapt, but far less than they have already had to due to other anthropogenic environmental changes.
We naturally have to stop burning fossil fuel when we run out of it. Economics will put a stop to it long before then. We probably could burn only about 1/4 of fossil fuels even if we tried.
Ocean acidification has happened many times before.
Read carefully: I said "IPCC-predicted temperature increases", not "IPCC predicted temperature increases".
I don't know what that's supposed to mean. AFAIK, the wireless modem is just a device from the point of view of Android or iOS. In addition (depending on the phone), it may also have a direct path to the microphone and speaker in order to make "old fashioned" phone calls. Other than that, in what way is it supposed to interact with cameras, memory, or storage, and why?
Human societies thrive on change. Bare survival is what you get when you put human societies into a stable environment.
If you knew about science, you'd know that a warmer planet would be a lot more pleasant to live on. But of course, you don't.
IPCC-predicted temperature increases will cause less disruption than the kind of carbon emission reductions that would be necessary to "stabilize" the climate.
Most people making below minimum wage are effectively trainees, or live with their parents, or use the job as a second job or second income in a family. They don't need to get enough money from a job to "live a reasonable life without government subsidy". By imposing a minimum wage, you simply take away job opportunities that they would otherwise have had.
Of course we will. And then other jobs will be below-living-wage jobs. Web design and PC maintenance, for example, will likely become the equivalent of baggers and cart handlers.
"We" should simply stop trying to impose price controls; they pretty much always hurt.
If these people could be getting better jobs, they would already be getting them. Most of them are inexperienced and need a job history and experience before they can get better paying jobs, and that opportunity exactly what you destroy by imposing "living wages".
That's the sort of reasoning that underlies minimum wage, but there's little evidence it works that way. Individual small businesses making short term plans may "pay whatever is required". That's because businesses don't optimize perfectly and instantly. Long term, however, they do.
European grocery stores already don't have baggers or shopping cart attendants. Raise the cost of hiring further, and you're going to see more self-checkout. Go even higher, and grocery stores are going to move to RFID checkout. Even higher, and they are going to go to stores based on fully robotic warehousing systems.
In the end, it's cheaper for most businesses to (1) either have customers do part of the work (whose time is cheaper than that of a full time employee), or (2) to automate. You don't help people by creating incentives for eliminating their jobs.
If you keep the minimum wage low enough (relative to the rest of the economy), it won't destroy prosperity. It also won't really have much of an effect. As you raise it, you'll get more and more negative consequences.
There is no evidence that a minimum wage helps people at any level. The best one can say about it is that it may not do harm if it's low enough.
Glad to hear it. I prefer a warmer planet.
The Linux kernel has served us reasonably well, but perhaps it's time for a new generation to create a new generation of kernel.
Which is why a lot of Americans would like to see more power returned to state and local governments, so that US states are much more like EU members.