Yes... lying bastards making dubious claims as if they were factual, with the intent of furthering their own interests, and with a willingness to deceive the customer.
But never lose track of this point... lying bastards.
Nope, not a bad industrial design, but it's pilot error.
In the real world, humans aren't always going to do these things as you envisioned them. If you can't design to account for this stuff, you're doing it wrong.
Like in software QA you pretty much try to do everything you shouldn't just to see what happens... in this kind of design, you give it to someone who is going to try every thing your engineers have said "nobody would ever do that", and find out just how badly they've done.
If it shouldn't be put in that way, you should probably ensure it physically can't be put in that way without a hammer. Because someone will do it wrong.
Sorry, but the human monkey seldom acts according to the idealized assumptions of engineers and product designers. Which means you should be assuming your assumptions are wrong.
Trademarks ONLY apply in the specific field of business you operate in, and are meaningless outside of that.
So you and I can continue to use "one more thing" and the people from Swatch can kiss our collective asses.
This should pretty much be limited to... being used by a CEO at the end of a presentation in the introduction of a new product or feature, and specifically in the realm of watches and other lines of business which Swatch was engaged in as of the time they got the trademark.
They can't claim to own the English language. It doesn't work that way.
So, you in your, say, modern circus can still say things like... "One more thing... a monkey with 7 testicles".
And since Swatch isn't in the business of promoting monkeys and their testicles... they can shut up.
I'm sure they'll try to expand this trademark to ridiculous levels, like all corporations do. But they really are restricted in what they can do.
At least for now. With enough corporate donations, they could change that.
So, a trademark is only valid in the area of business in which it is used. It isn't a blanket "nobody can use my catchphrase".
Which means this can pretty much only be used to... what... introduce a new watch by a CEO wearing a black turtleneck at the end of a keynote address? It sure as hell can't be used to prevent people from using it in a general sense.
It gives the Swiss company the right to use "one more thing" in its promotions and advertising up until 2025, a move no one was expecting. Presumably Swatch wants to aim some sly digs at the Cupertino company rather than pay homage to its innovation.
Oh, one more thing... patents like this make me want to punch right in the nuts and then the face every corporate executive in the world, every MBA, and every lawyer.
One more thing, how you express something isn't "innovation". It's the English language, you can't patent it in broad strokes like that. An expression isn't innovation unless it's truly novel.
One more thing, these kind of trademarks are stupid.
One more thing... assholes.
They should expect some serious internet mockery if they ever try to enforce this.
Because they'll quickly get the limitations of this trademark shown to them. Trademarking "one more thing" tells me the people giving out trademarks are idiots who do nothing but cash the cheque.
It can if everybody says they refuse to use it... if people in data centers are stuck with it, that's their damned problem.
Getting Flash of the human facing internet is important. Because that's where it's the biggest for being malware.
A jump server keeping it restricted to the data center will at least mean malicious ads and crap can't exploit the vulnerabilities in this pile of crap.
Flash has been a gaping security hole for as long as it has existed. Removing it from the desktop will be a good start.
What data centers and ad platforms use... well, the rest of us shouldn't be stuck with this crap because of that. That's a terrible argument.
Furthermore, I'm trying to see who in this case is forcing their beliefs on anybody? The hackers didn't, all they did was steal something valuable (private information) and turn it over.
So then I assume you missed the part where the hackers basically said "we're in 'yer interrubes, we've got 'yer stuff.. close down 'yer immoralz or we're gonna release teh customer info".
This was either someone trying to force their beliefs on someone, or a disgruntled employee who decided to be an asshole and punish the site users instead of the company.
But don't believe for a minute all these guys did was steal some information and release it without their own agenda here. Because that's complete crap.
If I leave my door open, and my stuff gets stolen, I am the one who has been punished.
If some asshole corporation fails at security, and my stuff gets stolen, I am still the one who has been punished.
See, the stuff being stolen here... It's not the property of the corporation, and they're not the ones who suffer when it is stolen. They've deemed themselves trustworthy to hold onto your data, and failed to safeguard it.
Oh, sure, they might get a little bad PR, and the stock might slip a little. But that asshole executive who decided security was too costly? It's not his data being stolen, and it's not him who has to deal with it.
So he, being an asshole executive, says "wow, we're not really sorry but if we say it will you shut up and go away?"
This is more like I've got stuff in my safe deposit box, and the bank gets robbed, and the bank say "wow, that's totally not our fault".
Your analogy sucks.
Corporations failing to protect the private and sensitive information they have been entrusted with are not the fucking victims, and they don't get to play the victim card.
And, of course, don't forget carving out huge exemptions for copyright holders aggressively being assholes^Wdilligent... there will be one of those.
And one for law enforcement, because hacking is OK if you're law enforcement.
And to protect the children. You can do anything if you're protecting children.
And national security, even if it is unrelated to national security. You know, that way the Stingray devices are still OK.
By the time all of those exemptions get made, it will boil down to "it shall be illegal for any private citizen to exploit the security holes we have ensured are in place", and will be utterly meaningless.
But, nosirree, we can't risk impacting quarterly profits and executive bonuses by ensuring corporations have legal responsibility to safeguard data. That would be like Communism.
And you know what? Between Vietnam and going into Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000's America spent years teaching this kind of asymmetric warfare around the world.
In Latin America. In Afghanistan. To Osama Bin Laden himself. Against a democracy and in favor of dictators if it was in the interests of the US.
So, like the British got all upset when America was fighting for independence that the Americans didn't wear uniforms and line up in rows, America has spent the last bunch of decades teaching how to do this very thing... and are upset that people don't wear uniforms and line up in rows or play by any established rules of the game.
There's a growing realization that even if you're technically winning a war, you're still losing if you can't tell the current "score of the game".
Sorry, that's not technically winning.
It's called being engaged in "low intensity" or "asymmetrical warfare", and means you might not be winning, and might not even know how you'd be able to tell.
Like the Russians weren't winning in Afghanistan.
And, in a similar way, why bombing ISIS and claiming you're winning doesn't mean you're winning when you can't change anything happening on the ground. It means the people who are counting the "score of the game" don't know if they're winning or losing, or what criteria to judge that.
It's notable to realize that America is now fighting people they trained and armed as they were fighting the Russians under the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", only to find out that isn't the case.
America lost the war before they even left, walked away from it and claimed to have done a great job, and now they're wondering why they think they "technically" won the war all the while discovering they didn't even know the rules of the game.
Especially now that the game has shifted to a new playing field, and people will have to re-learn the historical lesson that you can't control a country from the air.
Arguably, the Middle East might have been safer and less volatile if Bush hadn't gone into Iraq under bogus pretenses in the first place.
The problem is nobody else is playing this according to how the US strategists have claimed it would play out. Which means the US strategists don't seem to really know what is happening.
the use of these devices is rarely disclosed, thanks to a non-disclosure agreement with the FBI and probably a general reluctance to make public how much the department is using them, especially without bothering to obtain search warrants
So when the police lie about how they obtained evidence, allow an NDA with a corporation to be used to deny due process, and use this shit without a warrant... this stuff should be a criminal act.
This should be the kind of thing which gets you stripped of your duties and thrown in prison with the rest of the crooks.
This is perjury, actively undermining the way the legal system works, and likely violates several Constitutionally protected rights and probably defies years of legal precedent which says they're not allowed to do shit like this.
This is why we can no longer trust the integrity of the police. Between the police who break the law during an arrest and lie about it until the video surfaces, and the high-level breaking of the law at the department and prosecutor level... there's really no basis on which to trust them.
If they're not going to give a damn what the law says, take steps to evade it, and lie to us about it... then they should be subject to the force of law.
This shit should be felony convictions. And the police who are bypassing the legal system should be left to rot in prison fending for themselves with all of the other criminals.
The police have reached the point where institutionalized perjury seems to be the norm. Which means we have to assume they're all lying bastards.
But letting them use secret stuff, lying about if they used it, and otherwise subverting the legal system? Sorry, that's pretty much criminal conspiracy, and they know damned well they'd get tossed out of court if they admitted it. But for some reason the police seem to think it's OK when they do it.
Exactly. And there is no way in hell you should be trusting a Google which has remote access to your network, home automation, doors and every other thing Google thinks they're going to sell you.
Google is going to have access to the entire thing, be able to remotely control it, be forced to hand this over to law enforcement... and in all likelihood introduce new security holes as they ensure they can remotely manage it.
No way, now how, not going to happen.
Google wants to do this to further own interests, make more money, and have a strangle hold on your home use of the internet.
I think getting one of these would be completely idiotic. But the scary thing is a lot of people will probably buy the damned things anyway.
Mark my words, this will not end well for consumers.
Show me some place where the NSA has ever said "everything we do is OK according to the Constitution".
What's that? You got nothing? Keep moving along, citizen... there's nothing to see here.
The NSA, the FBI, local law enforcement, the government... none of these entities give a crap about the Constitution. They will do anything they can get away to fulfill what they think they're meant to do, or can get away with.
It is not possible to find a million ways around the Constitution and claim to be defending it.
These people have decided that "safety" trumps all other considerations. And if they have to have a little scope creep in those secret laws they got which they said would only every be used to fight terrorism, so be it.
So we no longer just use the un-Constitutional laws for terrorism, what's the harm? As long as people are safe.
And if that leads to a little violation of your rights, or an institutional form of perjury known as "parallel construction"... they don't give a fuck.
But if they think they're defending the Constitution by ignoring it, they're delusional. If you think they're defending the Constitution by ignoring this... you're also delusional.
The NSA wipes their ass on the Constitution on a daily basis on the notion they're keeping people safe. They've lost sight of the fact that people need to be kept safe from them.
Papers please, comrade. Your rights are what we tell you they are. And you're in a world where these entities demand even more power and control, and even fewer controls and balances.
The NSA defending the Constitution? Only when they have no choice, of when keeping up the illusion keeps you docile.
But when it counts? No fucking way. Not even a little.
So, I'm no rocket surgeon... but even I can imagine a closed system.
You know, it evaporates, but it's still inside some kind of vessel. Then it condenses, and you magically have water again. The water can then be evaporated again. Bonus points if you can exchange some of the heat with a separate loop of water without mixing them. Or maybe some kind of thing to increase the surface area and cool it. I'm calling it a radiator.
It's a new idea I just made up. Brand new and everything.
you just told us that they are evaporating the water, so it would end up in the atmosphere
Go the remedial section, look at several examples of closed systems and recirculation.
A hockey arena, your kitchen, your car AC (or it's engine cooling system), a nuclear submarine.. these are all applications which exist right now which allow the equivalent to happen. All without dumping it straight into the atmosphere.
Seriously... WTF? Do you think magic happens inside of an air conditioner or a fridge?
I can't speak to how well it works or what the limitations are... but I can say that what you describe is, in fact, a solved problem.
Unless of course you're imagining the streampunk data center, in which case venting the steam is just part of the awesome. But somehow, I don't think you meant that.
Don't fly off the handle and be a dumbass here and turn it into some kind of political rant. Of course you have a choice, we all do. Don't buy a Xerox printer. That's exactly what I will do and I won't give it a second thought.
When someone makes cartridges for this, and Xerox sues... tell us this bullshit again.
It's a political rant because it's real. The DMCA was a gift to corporations by idiotic politicians who were "generously supported" by corporations who wanted a law which allowed them a huge amount of leeway to abuse and with little controls, penalties, or restraint on them.
They can do anything they want to, and carry no risk. And they can use it to bully customers however they choose.
Maybe you're too clueless to know this shit is already happening, and is a direct result of politicians being hoodwinked by the copyright clowns into giving them the farm, forcing it on other countries in the form of treaties, and then finding new ways to abuse it.
It's political because it's really already happened. And in this case it happened without telling anybody... so people found this out after they'd bought the damned printer.
So the whole "don't buy a Xerox printer" is something spoken by a moron who is ignoring the people who already did and then got told that "for their own convenience" they had to buy regionally encoded toner in order to maximize the profits of the assholes at Xerox.
You can only choose to not buy Xerox because someone else has already been "served" by this.
They mean it in the "bend over and get 'served'" sense of the word?
God but Xerox and the other printer companies are ran by assholes.
And, of course, they can now use the DMCA to prevent someone making cartridges.
This is why we can't have nice things. Because idiot politicians have given all the power to corporations, and consumers no longer have any choice in the matter but to get fucked^Wserverd however is dictated to them.
Are you honestly expecting the NSA would tell them if they did this?
the NSA won't tell Congress what they do... WTF makes you think they give a crap what Cisco thinks about it?
It may or not be the NSA doing this, but I think your assumption they'd for forthright in admitting it is misguided. In fact, I assume at this point they'd lie through their teeth.
Unless of course there's a way to do it remotely using a built in security hole like a default password.
And then it becomes a whole let less "no shit, Sherlock" and becomes a lot more of "what the fuck were they thinking?".
What's key here is if companies are having an epidemic of their admin credentials being obtained through other means, or if there is a means of getting those admin credentials which shouldn't exist.
If it's a bunch of organizations with bad security practices, well, that's kind of hard to fix. If it's pinging the device and saying "give me your credentials", or a security backdoor they implemented... then it's an entirely different matter.
And in this day in age, I'm afraid my thinking is the security back door isn't so implausible. And I'm afraid if it's that, the issue lies squarely at the feet of Cisco.
It took 5 or 10 minutes for the programmer to fix the problem, he could have done it live on the Sunday if anyone had bothered to tell him what was going on.
I have seen far too many occasions where some hotshot made an out of band code change, broke prod, and then said "oh, it's just a quick fix".
It would have to be one hell of an emergency to have live changes on a prod system be anything other than a hanging offense. I've see more problems caused by it, than things fixed by it.
I've experienced several outages caused by someone who was either thinking "it's just a quick fix", or was trying to sneak in a fix for something which shouldn't have left their desk in the first place.
So basically there's a bunch of spare stuff laying about which, under the right circumstances, can actually change into something new and unexpected.
This is good, because it means we have more potential than what we already have. It also explains why organisms aren't constrained by things which came before them.
I still get the impression we still don't understand how all this works. Which is good. Because people start thinking science has answered everything, only to find out there's tons more to go.
Well, whatever this was coded in, it was recently upgraded... you know, not ancient.
The language written in doesn't matter. It was a new change, insufficiently tested, and which failed in the real world with a corner case nobody anticipated.
That's a pretty large failure of coding, testing, and deployment.
It's a bunch of things, but really you'd expect the people responsible for it would have been a LOT more paranoid and rigorous about it.
It's an air traffic system after all, around Washington for crying out loud... which means there's probably some security people going completely apoplectic.
I mean, the movie scenario of knowing there's an update to the ATC system around Washington and then all of the fanciful plot devices you can add in are suddenly slightly more plausible... if "air traffic control offline around Washington" isn't begging to have a Bruce Willis movie, I don't know what is.
You want to bet someone at DHS didn't have a couple of extra Rolaids when this happened?
You can make the argument that if the software allowed the operators to crash the system, it's a software fault.
You can also make the argument that stuff like this should have been tested in parallel with the live system so this wasn't a possibility.
I mean, my god, what are the change management and testing practices which allowed this to only be discovered in your real system?
I've been around a few systems which had to do with aircraft... and the rules and practices surrounding them are pretty paranoid and rigorous, because the stakes are so high. For an actual air traffic system I'm stunned this happened.
Or, they're news sites, not in the business of designing a comment system, and don't want to waste resources policing the assholes and idiots.
If their core competencies aren't designing a good comment system, WTF should they bother with it for if it's just a lot of work to keep out the trolls?
I mean, really, how is your news site going? Or are you just assuming just because they have a news website they should give a damn about supporting a comment system?
The internet doesn't need every site to have comments, and making all of the internet "teh social" is a waste of time. In fact, it's making the internet a crappier place.
Slashdot Mirror
Soon, we can have that sonar thingy Lucius Fox did for Batman in the Dark Knight movie.
Yes ... lying bastards making dubious claims as if they were factual, with the intent of furthering their own interests, and with a willingness to deceive the customer.
But never lose track of this point ... lying bastards.
So ... "you're holding it wrong" for the win?
Nope, not a bad industrial design, but it's pilot error.
In the real world, humans aren't always going to do these things as you envisioned them. If you can't design to account for this stuff, you're doing it wrong.
Like in software QA you pretty much try to do everything you shouldn't just to see what happens ... in this kind of design, you give it to someone who is going to try every thing your engineers have said "nobody would ever do that", and find out just how badly they've done.
If it shouldn't be put in that way, you should probably ensure it physically can't be put in that way without a hammer. Because someone will do it wrong.
Sorry, but the human monkey seldom acts according to the idealized assumptions of engineers and product designers. Which means you should be assuming your assumptions are wrong.
"Priot art" doesn't apply to trademarks.
Trademarks ONLY apply in the specific field of business you operate in, and are meaningless outside of that.
So you and I can continue to use "one more thing" and the people from Swatch can kiss our collective asses.
This should pretty much be limited to ... being used by a CEO at the end of a presentation in the introduction of a new product or feature, and specifically in the realm of watches and other lines of business which Swatch was engaged in as of the time they got the trademark.
They can't claim to own the English language. It doesn't work that way.
So, you in your, say, modern circus can still say things like ... "One more thing ... a monkey with 7 testicles".
And since Swatch isn't in the business of promoting monkeys and their testicles ... they can shut up.
I'm sure they'll try to expand this trademark to ridiculous levels, like all corporations do. But they really are restricted in what they can do.
At least for now. With enough corporate donations, they could change that.
So, a trademark is only valid in the area of business in which it is used. It isn't a blanket "nobody can use my catchphrase".
Which means this can pretty much only be used to ... what ... introduce a new watch by a CEO wearing a black turtleneck at the end of a keynote address? It sure as hell can't be used to prevent people from using it in a general sense.
Oh, one more thing ... patents like this make me want to punch right in the nuts and then the face every corporate executive in the world, every MBA, and every lawyer.
One more thing, how you express something isn't "innovation". It's the English language, you can't patent it in broad strokes like that. An expression isn't innovation unless it's truly novel.
One more thing, these kind of trademarks are stupid.
One more thing ... assholes.
They should expect some serious internet mockery if they ever try to enforce this.
Because they'll quickly get the limitations of this trademark shown to them. Trademarking "one more thing" tells me the people giving out trademarks are idiots who do nothing but cash the cheque.
I'm afraid to ask WTF XHamster is ... and rule #34 says I'm sure as hell not googling it ... so, "la la la" ... not sure I want to know.
It can if everybody says they refuse to use it ... if people in data centers are stuck with it, that's their damned problem.
Getting Flash of the human facing internet is important. Because that's where it's the biggest for being malware.
A jump server keeping it restricted to the data center will at least mean malicious ads and crap can't exploit the vulnerabilities in this pile of crap.
Flash has been a gaping security hole for as long as it has existed. Removing it from the desktop will be a good start.
What data centers and ad platforms use ... well, the rest of us shouldn't be stuck with this crap because of that. That's a terrible argument.
So then I assume you missed the part where the hackers basically said "we're in 'yer interrubes, we've got 'yer stuff .. close down 'yer immoralz or we're gonna release teh customer info".
This was either someone trying to force their beliefs on someone, or a disgruntled employee who decided to be an asshole and punish the site users instead of the company.
But don't believe for a minute all these guys did was steal some information and release it without their own agenda here. Because that's complete crap.
If I leave my door open, and my stuff gets stolen, I am the one who has been punished.
If some asshole corporation fails at security, and my stuff gets stolen, I am still the one who has been punished.
See, the stuff being stolen here ... It's not the property of the corporation, and they're not the ones who suffer when it is stolen. They've deemed themselves trustworthy to hold onto your data, and failed to safeguard it.
Oh, sure, they might get a little bad PR, and the stock might slip a little. But that asshole executive who decided security was too costly? It's not his data being stolen, and it's not him who has to deal with it.
So he, being an asshole executive, says "wow, we're not really sorry but if we say it will you shut up and go away?"
This is more like I've got stuff in my safe deposit box, and the bank gets robbed, and the bank say "wow, that's totally not our fault".
Your analogy sucks.
Corporations failing to protect the private and sensitive information they have been entrusted with are not the fucking victims, and they don't get to play the victim card.
And, of course, don't forget carving out huge exemptions for copyright holders aggressively being assholes^Wdilligent ... there will be one of those.
And one for law enforcement, because hacking is OK if you're law enforcement.
And to protect the children. You can do anything if you're protecting children.
And national security, even if it is unrelated to national security. You know, that way the Stingray devices are still OK.
By the time all of those exemptions get made, it will boil down to "it shall be illegal for any private citizen to exploit the security holes we have ensured are in place", and will be utterly meaningless.
But, nosirree, we can't risk impacting quarterly profits and executive bonuses by ensuring corporations have legal responsibility to safeguard data. That would be like Communism.
And you know what? Between Vietnam and going into Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000's America spent years teaching this kind of asymmetric warfare around the world.
In Latin America. In Afghanistan. To Osama Bin Laden himself. Against a democracy and in favor of dictators if it was in the interests of the US.
So, like the British got all upset when America was fighting for independence that the Americans didn't wear uniforms and line up in rows, America has spent the last bunch of decades teaching how to do this very thing ... and are upset that people don't wear uniforms and line up in rows or play by any established rules of the game.
Sorry, that's not technically winning.
It's called being engaged in "low intensity" or "asymmetrical warfare", and means you might not be winning, and might not even know how you'd be able to tell.
Like the Russians weren't winning in Afghanistan.
And, in a similar way, why bombing ISIS and claiming you're winning doesn't mean you're winning when you can't change anything happening on the ground. It means the people who are counting the "score of the game" don't know if they're winning or losing, or what criteria to judge that.
It's notable to realize that America is now fighting people they trained and armed as they were fighting the Russians under the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", only to find out that isn't the case.
America lost the war before they even left, walked away from it and claimed to have done a great job, and now they're wondering why they think they "technically" won the war all the while discovering they didn't even know the rules of the game.
Especially now that the game has shifted to a new playing field, and people will have to re-learn the historical lesson that you can't control a country from the air.
Arguably, the Middle East might have been safer and less volatile if Bush hadn't gone into Iraq under bogus pretenses in the first place.
The problem is nobody else is playing this according to how the US strategists have claimed it would play out. Which means the US strategists don't seem to really know what is happening.
So when the police lie about how they obtained evidence, allow an NDA with a corporation to be used to deny due process, and use this shit without a warrant ... this stuff should be a criminal act.
This should be the kind of thing which gets you stripped of your duties and thrown in prison with the rest of the crooks.
This is perjury, actively undermining the way the legal system works, and likely violates several Constitutionally protected rights and probably defies years of legal precedent which says they're not allowed to do shit like this.
This is why we can no longer trust the integrity of the police. Between the police who break the law during an arrest and lie about it until the video surfaces, and the high-level breaking of the law at the department and prosecutor level ... there's really no basis on which to trust them.
If they're not going to give a damn what the law says, take steps to evade it, and lie to us about it ... then they should be subject to the force of law.
This shit should be felony convictions. And the police who are bypassing the legal system should be left to rot in prison fending for themselves with all of the other criminals.
The police have reached the point where institutionalized perjury seems to be the norm. Which means we have to assume they're all lying bastards.
But letting them use secret stuff, lying about if they used it, and otherwise subverting the legal system? Sorry, that's pretty much criminal conspiracy, and they know damned well they'd get tossed out of court if they admitted it. But for some reason the police seem to think it's OK when they do it.
Exactly. And there is no way in hell you should be trusting a Google which has remote access to your network, home automation, doors and every other thing Google thinks they're going to sell you.
Google is going to have access to the entire thing, be able to remotely control it, be forced to hand this over to law enforcement ... and in all likelihood introduce new security holes as they ensure they can remotely manage it.
No way, now how, not going to happen.
Google wants to do this to further own interests, make more money, and have a strangle hold on your home use of the internet.
I think getting one of these would be completely idiotic. But the scary thing is a lot of people will probably buy the damned things anyway.
Mark my words, this will not end well for consumers.
Sorry, but bullshit.
Show me some place where the NSA has ever said "everything we do is OK according to the Constitution".
What's that? You got nothing? Keep moving along, citizen ... there's nothing to see here.
The NSA, the FBI, local law enforcement, the government ... none of these entities give a crap about the Constitution. They will do anything they can get away to fulfill what they think they're meant to do, or can get away with.
It is not possible to find a million ways around the Constitution and claim to be defending it.
These people have decided that "safety" trumps all other considerations. And if they have to have a little scope creep in those secret laws they got which they said would only every be used to fight terrorism, so be it.
So we no longer just use the un-Constitutional laws for terrorism, what's the harm? As long as people are safe.
And if that leads to a little violation of your rights, or an institutional form of perjury known as "parallel construction" ... they don't give a fuck.
But if they think they're defending the Constitution by ignoring it, they're delusional. If you think they're defending the Constitution by ignoring this ... you're also delusional.
The NSA wipes their ass on the Constitution on a daily basis on the notion they're keeping people safe. They've lost sight of the fact that people need to be kept safe from them.
Papers please, comrade. Your rights are what we tell you they are. And you're in a world where these entities demand even more power and control, and even fewer controls and balances.
The NSA defending the Constitution? Only when they have no choice, of when keeping up the illusion keeps you docile.
But when it counts? No fucking way. Not even a little.
So, I'm no rocket surgeon ... but even I can imagine a closed system.
You know, it evaporates, but it's still inside some kind of vessel. Then it condenses, and you magically have water again. The water can then be evaporated again. Bonus points if you can exchange some of the heat with a separate loop of water without mixing them. Or maybe some kind of thing to increase the surface area and cool it. I'm calling it a radiator.
It's a new idea I just made up. Brand new and everything.
Go the remedial section, look at several examples of closed systems and recirculation.
A hockey arena, your kitchen, your car AC (or it's engine cooling system), a nuclear submarine .. these are all applications which exist right now which allow the equivalent to happen. All without dumping it straight into the atmosphere.
Seriously ... WTF? Do you think magic happens inside of an air conditioner or a fridge?
I can't speak to how well it works or what the limitations are ... but I can say that what you describe is, in fact, a solved problem.
Unless of course you're imagining the streampunk data center, in which case venting the steam is just part of the awesome. But somehow, I don't think you meant that.
When someone makes cartridges for this, and Xerox sues ... tell us this bullshit again.
It's a political rant because it's real. The DMCA was a gift to corporations by idiotic politicians who were "generously supported" by corporations who wanted a law which allowed them a huge amount of leeway to abuse and with little controls, penalties, or restraint on them.
They can do anything they want to, and carry no risk. And they can use it to bully customers however they choose.
Maybe you're too clueless to know this shit is already happening, and is a direct result of politicians being hoodwinked by the copyright clowns into giving them the farm, forcing it on other countries in the form of treaties, and then finding new ways to abuse it.
It's political because it's really already happened. And in this case it happened without telling anybody ... so people found this out after they'd bought the damned printer.
So the whole "don't buy a Xerox printer" is something spoken by a moron who is ignoring the people who already did and then got told that "for their own convenience" they had to buy regionally encoded toner in order to maximize the profits of the assholes at Xerox.
You can only choose to not buy Xerox because someone else has already been "served" by this.
Go "serve" yourself.
They mean it in the "bend over and get 'served'" sense of the word?
God but Xerox and the other printer companies are ran by assholes.
And, of course, they can now use the DMCA to prevent someone making cartridges.
This is why we can't have nice things. Because idiot politicians have given all the power to corporations, and consumers no longer have any choice in the matter but to get fucked^Wserverd however is dictated to them.
But but ... it's the cloud. Why would you need a backup in the cloud?
You mean we've been lied to?
Are you honestly expecting the NSA would tell them if they did this?
the NSA won't tell Congress what they do ... WTF makes you think they give a crap what Cisco thinks about it?
It may or not be the NSA doing this, but I think your assumption they'd for forthright in admitting it is misguided. In fact, I assume at this point they'd lie through their teeth.
Unless of course there's a way to do it remotely using a built in security hole like a default password.
And then it becomes a whole let less "no shit, Sherlock" and becomes a lot more of "what the fuck were they thinking?".
What's key here is if companies are having an epidemic of their admin credentials being obtained through other means, or if there is a means of getting those admin credentials which shouldn't exist.
If it's a bunch of organizations with bad security practices, well, that's kind of hard to fix. If it's pinging the device and saying "give me your credentials", or a security backdoor they implemented ... then it's an entirely different matter.
And in this day in age, I'm afraid my thinking is the security back door isn't so implausible. And I'm afraid if it's that, the issue lies squarely at the feet of Cisco.
I have seen far too many occasions where some hotshot made an out of band code change, broke prod, and then said "oh, it's just a quick fix".
It would have to be one hell of an emergency to have live changes on a prod system be anything other than a hanging offense. I've see more problems caused by it, than things fixed by it.
I've experienced several outages caused by someone who was either thinking "it's just a quick fix", or was trying to sneak in a fix for something which shouldn't have left their desk in the first place.
So basically there's a bunch of spare stuff laying about which, under the right circumstances, can actually change into something new and unexpected.
This is good, because it means we have more potential than what we already have. It also explains why organisms aren't constrained by things which came before them.
I still get the impression we still don't understand how all this works. Which is good. Because people start thinking science has answered everything, only to find out there's tons more to go.
Well, whatever this was coded in, it was recently upgraded ... you know, not ancient.
The language written in doesn't matter. It was a new change, insufficiently tested, and which failed in the real world with a corner case nobody anticipated.
That's a pretty large failure of coding, testing, and deployment.
It's a bunch of things, but really you'd expect the people responsible for it would have been a LOT more paranoid and rigorous about it.
It's an air traffic system after all, around Washington for crying out loud ... which means there's probably some security people going completely apoplectic.
I mean, the movie scenario of knowing there's an update to the ATC system around Washington and then all of the fanciful plot devices you can add in are suddenly slightly more plausible ... if "air traffic control offline around Washington" isn't begging to have a Bruce Willis movie, I don't know what is.
You want to bet someone at DHS didn't have a couple of extra Rolaids when this happened?
You can make the argument that if the software allowed the operators to crash the system, it's a software fault.
You can also make the argument that stuff like this should have been tested in parallel with the live system so this wasn't a possibility.
I mean, my god, what are the change management and testing practices which allowed this to only be discovered in your real system?
I've been around a few systems which had to do with aircraft ... and the rules and practices surrounding them are pretty paranoid and rigorous, because the stakes are so high. For an actual air traffic system I'm stunned this happened.
I guess I'm not surprised, but I am stunned.
Or, they're news sites, not in the business of designing a comment system, and don't want to waste resources policing the assholes and idiots.
If their core competencies aren't designing a good comment system, WTF should they bother with it for if it's just a lot of work to keep out the trolls?
I mean, really, how is your news site going? Or are you just assuming just because they have a news website they should give a damn about supporting a comment system?
The internet doesn't need every site to have comments, and making all of the internet "teh social" is a waste of time. In fact, it's making the internet a crappier place.