Why is this post marked informative? It's wrong; and it's wrong in a critical way as far as I can tell. The video shows the password extract being done immediately on reboot, NOT after the user types in his password. The password was entered later just to demonstrate that the correct password was extracted.
So pretty much, yeah, the OP was actually correct his in concern. Walk away from the laptop, someone swoops in, reboots, grabs your password and the deed is done.
First, it's precedent. Second, you clearly have read absolutely nothing about this situation. I spent a total of about 10 seconds skimming the article and still picked up enough to know that this was not the case you want to make your "men have no rights" stand on. You're hurting the very cause you're (apparently) trying to help by doing so.
This father-of-the-year had no contact with his terminally ill daughter for SEVEN years prior. His daughter didn't even want him to see her body when she was gone.... So, yeah, I'm kinda thinking he gets no say whatsoever in this.
This has to be a new record for the time between when something showed up in my Facebook feed to the time when someone cross posted to Slashdot. Sad, sad day.
Only in this case it's "complex, configurable, secure - pick any two".
Hmmm. Ok. I'll take secure and configurable. Thanks.
Not sure your attempt to rework an "old engineering saying" was entirely successful.
I suspect your later use of the word "versatile" would have been a better choice here. "versatile, configurable, secure - pick any two". Yeah, that seems to work.
I eventually had to install (yet another) "idiot jargon translation" plug-in in my brain at the "A is X times than B" point to flip and convert that to something more like "B is X times than A" to help reduce the risk of rupturing an aneurysm.
No, my assumptions were almost as narrow as the parent's worldview.
Saying something doesn't make it so. And you can't just say what you wish were true. You have to review the facts and see if what you're saying is actually true or not... For example:
and the typical American who makes broad assumptions about the rest of the world without actually ENGAGING with it
You're making a pretty broad statement there. Assuming anything to be true about the "typical American" is, almost by definition, a broad assumption.
So, no, your assumptions were not narrow by any stretch of the imagination no matter how much you'd like to believe they were.
Oh, I do so enjoy engaging with the rest of the world.
Given that this is/., that isn't going to be an option for about 90% of the people here...
I remember when that used to be funny. Actually, I got a little snicker out of it even now.
But I'm surprised to say that it's not actually funny anymore. And not because it's true. No, poking at stuff that's true is funny; that's part of clever humor. And I guarantee you that it was once true that 90% of guys on Slashdot couldn't even speak to a female much less marry one.
It's not funny anymore because the underlying presumption just isn't true any more. I'm shocked but it really seems like having strong computer-foo is actually attractive these days.
So when I read your comment I snickered for a second because that seemed like what I should do and it was always funny in the past. But then I just sorta stopped and said to myself, "Wait, that's really not the case these days." What a great realization.
I understand what you're getting at and mostly agree. My only comment is that once you design these big in-vehicle fully-connected systems to do stuff like report on steering angle and live fuel pressure or whatever else, it's awfully tempting to turn around and implement the PUT or POST to go along with those GET APIs so that all your dealer diagnostics and datalogging tools just hook into the same point everything else does. It reduces the number of different systems and interfaces you have to design, implement and debug.
I have no data on this, but I suspect cost cutting measures have to be insane at auto makers. I recall buying a nice turbo AWD Eclipse in the mid-90s for nearly $30k. Twenty years later and I can still buy a nice turbo AWD car for just a little more than that and this new car will have VASTLY superior features all around. The cost difference barely accounts for inflation. How they also crammed so much new tech and new hardware into it for what's effectively the same price today as it was 20 years ago boggles my mind.
So I suspect this all comes down to trying to push more stuff through that new system to save a few bucks somewhere and then skipping that whole "security" check in the process.
So what? Because they're a business acting in their self-interest that makes it proper and ethical and we're not supposed to discuss or criticize them?
Sure you are. And he is doing just that. His statement that they can do whatever they want does not imply that you can't discuss it. That's just his position on the matter. Don't like it? Offer an alternative viewpoint.
Dead-on. We've owned Fords since 1989. Sync hasn't ruined it that completely for us, but I will most certainly be looking for alternatives to the media component of our next Ford.
Now...if Microsoft digs deeper into the power or drive train management of things, we're screwed. It'll be off to Chevy we go.:)
Often with disincentives to people bettering themselves because then they could end up off one system or another, and almost always with huge bureaucratic overhead costs.
I'm confused on this point. What are the huge bureaucratic overhead costs associated with someone leaving the unemployment/welfare system? Honestly, I don't know. It seems simpler to me in terms of overhead for someone to simply take up a job and stop the requests for welfare payments. The overhead would seem to be in their continuing to submit requests for payments at ever renewal stage, providing documentation that they've been out looking, etc., etc.
you probably want something extra for each dependent a family has
Everybody sees the problem with this, right? We all know full well what happens when you incentivize having dependents.
Anyone who has been stuck with a Ford Sync (sadly I am in that group) or MyFord Touch radio running the crap software MS built knows how bad of an idea this is.
This. Exactly this.
I've posted my frustrations with Sync before. In fact, the very first words out of my mouth when we got into that F150 for our first test drive was "Oh, wait, why does that say Microsoft next to my radio? That's going to be nothing but trouble." And guess what? I have to routinely stop the engine, remove the key and open the door to give that lovely Microsoft Sync product a second chance at connecting to my phone that it was just happily connected only a few minutes prior. It's probably not even a 50/50 chance that it'll work! The $15 bluetooth-to-FM transmitter I bought off Amazon, however, works like a freaking charm. I NEVER have failed connections with that thing. Ever.
If I get into another car for a test drive and I see a Microsoft logo anywhere on it, I will exit said vehicle immediately and demand a credit for the 5 minutes of my time they just wasted.
Because as stated in another thread, MS/W devs do `char path[MAX_PATH];` So if MS removes the limit most programs will stack overflow.
You may mean buffer overflow here.
The declaration you've quoted would be resolved at compile time, not run time. So if MAX_PATH was 260 at compile time and then run on a system where the runtime behavior allowed for longer paths, I could certainly see a buffer overflow condition happening. But the program will only ever allocated 260 bytes off the stack in that case, so stack usage would remain the same.
And I assume if MAX_PATH were _UI64_MAX (or whatever) at compile time, the compiler would complain.
Lame, perhaps, but certainly real to the extent that someone is (at least temporarily) locked out of their system and has to take steps to restore it or pay the ransom.
From the fine article, it didn't bother encrypting anything so that certainly bumps it way up on the lame scale. But it's not like people received notices in their inbox demanding ransom for something that never got installed.
For the love of Dog, compress it! tar cvfz / tar xvfz, how hard can it be ?
I've found the bzip2 algorithm far more effective in compressing DNA-based tarballs. And I find the verbose option to be particularly annoying while creating or restoring jigawatt-sized tarballs.
So allow me to suggest tar cjf / tar xjf as an alternative.
Any recurrence of the virus, whether natural or artificial, would either be different from the known smallpox strains in meaningful ways or it wouldn't. If it is different, then the current smallpox virus probably won't be of any real benefit in developing a vaccine for the new variant; they would need samples of the new virus instead. If it isn't different, then the existing vaccine will "just work", and we don't need the current smallpox virus.
Right. Exactly right. I don't get why this isn't blatantly obvious to the author. I had a hard time even reading the article. I couldn't parse the poor logical constructs. "We might need this old smallpox sample for which we already have an effective vaccine just in case someone creates a new, incompatible strain we don't know about." Say what now!?
I guess if you're heading down the correction path, here are a couple more that jumped out and slapped me in the face while reading your otherwise rather insightful comment.
without him realizing it
Should be "without his realizing it". Possessive case (his) for the noun (realizing [gerund form of realize]) that follows.
Who'd of think it?
And for god's sake, man, if you're going to use a phrase like, make sure it has the right ring to it. This should clearly have been "Who'd of thunk it?".
Slashdot Mirror
Others go cycling on a $2000 cycle.
I wish it were only a $2000 cycle... Point taken.
whoosh
Why is this post marked informative? It's wrong; and it's wrong in a critical way as far as I can tell. The video shows the password extract being done immediately on reboot, NOT after the user types in his password. The password was entered later just to demonstrate that the correct password was extracted.
So pretty much, yeah, the OP was actually correct his in concern. Walk away from the laptop, someone swoops in, reboots, grabs your password and the deed is done.
Too soon.
First, it's precedent. Second, you clearly have read absolutely nothing about this situation. I spent a total of about 10 seconds skimming the article and still picked up enough to know that this was not the case you want to make your "men have no rights" stand on. You're hurting the very cause you're (apparently) trying to help by doing so.
This father-of-the-year had no contact with his terminally ill daughter for SEVEN years prior. His daughter didn't even want him to see her body when she was gone.... So, yeah, I'm kinda thinking he gets no say whatsoever in this.
This has to be a new record for the time between when something showed up in my Facebook feed to the time when someone cross posted to Slashdot. Sad, sad day.
Only in this case it's "complex, configurable, secure - pick any two".
Hmmm. Ok. I'll take secure and configurable. Thanks.
Not sure your attempt to rework an "old engineering saying" was entirely successful.
I suspect your later use of the word "versatile" would have been a better choice here. "versatile, configurable, secure - pick any two". Yeah, that seems to work.
Bah. It appears Slashdot has an "idiot jargon translator" of its own that removed my less / more blocks marked with gt and lt symbols.
"A is X times [ less ] than B" -> "B is X times [ more ] than A"
I've given up on this. It used to drive me nuts.
I eventually had to install (yet another) "idiot jargon translation" plug-in in my brain at the "A is X times than B" point to flip and convert that to something more like "B is X times than A" to help reduce the risk of rupturing an aneurysm.
No, my assumptions were almost as narrow as the parent's worldview.
Saying something doesn't make it so. And you can't just say what you wish were true. You have to review the facts and see if what you're saying is actually true or not... For example:
and the typical American who makes broad assumptions about the rest of the world without actually ENGAGING with it
You're making a pretty broad statement there. Assuming anything to be true about the "typical American" is, almost by definition, a broad assumption.
So, no, your assumptions were not narrow by any stretch of the imagination no matter how much you'd like to believe they were.
Oh, I do so enjoy engaging with the rest of the world.
Now in my 80's, my cocaine fueled exploits almost always end in disaster.
McAfee, is that you!?
Given that this is /., that isn't going to be an option for about 90% of the people here...
I remember when that used to be funny. Actually, I got a little snicker out of it even now.
But I'm surprised to say that it's not actually funny anymore. And not because it's true. No, poking at stuff that's true is funny; that's part of clever humor. And I guarantee you that it was once true that 90% of guys on Slashdot couldn't even speak to a female much less marry one.
It's not funny anymore because the underlying presumption just isn't true any more. I'm shocked but it really seems like having strong computer-foo is actually attractive these days.
So when I read your comment I snickered for a second because that seemed like what I should do and it was always funny in the past. But then I just sorta stopped and said to myself, "Wait, that's really not the case these days." What a great realization.
I understand what you're getting at and mostly agree. My only comment is that once you design these big in-vehicle fully-connected systems to do stuff like report on steering angle and live fuel pressure or whatever else, it's awfully tempting to turn around and implement the PUT or POST to go along with those GET APIs so that all your dealer diagnostics and datalogging tools just hook into the same point everything else does. It reduces the number of different systems and interfaces you have to design, implement and debug.
I have no data on this, but I suspect cost cutting measures have to be insane at auto makers. I recall buying a nice turbo AWD Eclipse in the mid-90s for nearly $30k. Twenty years later and I can still buy a nice turbo AWD car for just a little more than that and this new car will have VASTLY superior features all around. The cost difference barely accounts for inflation. How they also crammed so much new tech and new hardware into it for what's effectively the same price today as it was 20 years ago boggles my mind.
So I suspect this all comes down to trying to push more stuff through that new system to save a few bucks somewhere and then skipping that whole "security" check in the process.
So what? Because they're a business acting in their self-interest that makes it proper and ethical and we're not supposed to discuss or criticize them?
Sure you are. And he is doing just that. His statement that they can do whatever they want does not imply that you can't discuss it. That's just his position on the matter. Don't like it? Offer an alternative viewpoint.
Good info! Seriously. I was, in fact, considering a replacement system and Kenwood probably would have been relatively high up on the list.
Dead-on. We've owned Fords since 1989. Sync hasn't ruined it that completely for us, but I will most certainly be looking for alternatives to the media component of our next Ford.
Now...if Microsoft digs deeper into the power or drive train management of things, we're screwed. It'll be off to Chevy we go. :)
Often with disincentives to people bettering themselves because then they could end up off one system or another, and almost always with huge bureaucratic overhead costs.
I'm confused on this point. What are the huge bureaucratic overhead costs associated with someone leaving the unemployment/welfare system? Honestly, I don't know. It seems simpler to me in terms of overhead for someone to simply take up a job and stop the requests for welfare payments. The overhead would seem to be in their continuing to submit requests for payments at ever renewal stage, providing documentation that they've been out looking, etc., etc.
you probably want something extra for each dependent a family has
Everybody sees the problem with this, right? We all know full well what happens when you incentivize having dependents.
Anyone who has been stuck with a Ford Sync (sadly I am in that group) or MyFord Touch radio running the crap software MS built knows how bad of an idea this is.
This. Exactly this.
I've posted my frustrations with Sync before. In fact, the very first words out of my mouth when we got into that F150 for our first test drive was "Oh, wait, why does that say Microsoft next to my radio? That's going to be nothing but trouble." And guess what? I have to routinely stop the engine, remove the key and open the door to give that lovely Microsoft Sync product a second chance at connecting to my phone that it was just happily connected only a few minutes prior. It's probably not even a 50/50 chance that it'll work! The $15 bluetooth-to-FM transmitter I bought off Amazon, however, works like a freaking charm. I NEVER have failed connections with that thing. Ever.
If I get into another car for a test drive and I see a Microsoft logo anywhere on it, I will exit said vehicle immediately and demand a credit for the 5 minutes of my time they just wasted.
Because as stated in another thread, MS/W devs do `char path[MAX_PATH];` So if MS removes the limit most programs will stack overflow.
You may mean buffer overflow here.
The declaration you've quoted would be resolved at compile time, not run time. So if MAX_PATH was 260 at compile time and then run on a system where the runtime behavior allowed for longer paths, I could certainly see a buffer overflow condition happening. But the program will only ever allocated 260 bytes off the stack in that case, so stack usage would remain the same.
And I assume if MAX_PATH were _UI64_MAX (or whatever) at compile time, the compiler would complain.
Sounds real to me.
Lame, perhaps, but certainly real to the extent that someone is (at least temporarily) locked out of their system and has to take steps to restore it or pay the ransom.
From the fine article, it didn't bother encrypting anything so that certainly bumps it way up on the lame scale. But it's not like people received notices in their inbox demanding ransom for something that never got installed.
For the love of Dog, compress it! tar cvfz / tar xvfz, how hard can it be ?
I've found the bzip2 algorithm far more effective in compressing DNA-based tarballs. And I find the verbose option to be particularly annoying while creating or restoring jigawatt-sized tarballs.
So allow me to suggest tar cjf / tar xjf as an alternative.
Maybe we need to keep it around to use in the impending alien invasion.
It's amusing that this is probably the strongest argument to date for keeping this crap around.
Any recurrence of the virus, whether natural or artificial, would either be different from the known smallpox strains in meaningful ways or it wouldn't. If it is different, then the current smallpox virus probably won't be of any real benefit in developing a vaccine for the new variant; they would need samples of the new virus instead. If it isn't different, then the existing vaccine will "just work", and we don't need the current smallpox virus.
Right. Exactly right. I don't get why this isn't blatantly obvious to the author. I had a hard time even reading the article. I couldn't parse the poor logical constructs. "We might need this old smallpox sample for which we already have an effective vaccine just in case someone creates a new, incompatible strain we don't know about." Say what now!?
I guess if you're heading down the correction path, here are a couple more that jumped out and slapped me in the face while reading your otherwise rather insightful comment.
without him realizing it
Should be "without his realizing it". Possessive case (his) for the noun (realizing [gerund form of realize]) that follows.
Who'd of think it?
And for god's sake, man, if you're going to use a phrase like, make sure it has the right ring to it. This should clearly have been "Who'd of thunk it?".
You mean like the generic name "PC". Oh, wait...