Kaspersky has had a stellar reputation in the community for two decades. They've consistently been one of the top cybersecurity researchers in the world.
That being said, who knows, maybe Putin has an office at their HQ, but all this FUD without a shred of evidence whatsoever isn't helping anything.
This is sort of missing the point. There is no real rule-of-law in Russia right now, so any company or person operating out of that country is completely at the mercy of the whims of Putin. Kaspersky could be the greatest defender of free-speech and computer security the world has ever known 99% of the time, but if the day comes (or has come) when Putin wants something out of a computer, and he wants Kaspersky's software to quietly do it, the guy has literally no recourse.
The post (suspiciously) left out the most important explanatory part of TFA:
"The transportation sector held its title as the largest source of US emissions for the third year running, as robust growth in demand for diesel and jet fuel offset a modest decline in gasoline consumption," Rhodium wrote.
Industrial emissions from various types of manufacturing as well as emissions from buildings both saw significant increases in their carbon emissions in 2018.
...
In 2018, gasoline demand decreased by just 0.1 percent. But growth in the US trucking industry increased diesel demand by 3.1 percent, and demand for air travel increased jet fuel demand by 3 percent.
Yes, they do. If you want proof, go check any political post from late 2015, and set your threshold to +5. You'll see an inexplicable love for Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. If you want to see the more typical/. skepticism of those people, you'll have to jack it down to -1.
Russians had/. completely pwned the last 2 months of the election.
In the US, if you act as a foreign agent without registering as such with the US Justice Dept., you are considered a "covert foreign agent.". If you ever find yourself defending the nuance of difference between "covert foreign agent" and "spy", you really need to reexamine your priorities.
Hell. Trade them, I say. Putin's not happy with her for pleading guilty and giving up information to investigators. Let that spying bitch go back to Russia and so Putin can have her killed. What's the problem here?
The problem is she quite possibly has information that will be useful in court with the other targets (besides her and the other arrested and cooperating witnesses) of the Russian hacking investigation. The point of arresting her wasn't to take a spy off the streets, it was to be able to use the charges against her as leverage to get her cooperation in taking down some of the bigger fish in this ring. This is how conspiracy prosecutors work.
That will be unavailable to US prosecutors if she's conveniently back in Russia, traded by the boss of "US Person 1" (from her indictment papers) for a US citizen Russia purposely picked up for this exact reason. There will be no leverage to get her to help prosecute her former US contacts, and its quite likely (as you imply) she will end up even more inconveniently dead, like many other Russians involved in this affair..
Which means the next question is, if the POTUS agrees to "trade" a prisoner to a country who was otherwise perhaps going to cooperate with an investigation into his underlings, and possibly himself, is that interference in an investigation? The answer is "Yes", but its an innovative new way to do it.
The next question after that is, does anyone have the authority to refuse? I'm not sure the answer to that one. I'm thinking probably not, unless she perhaps has state charges against her too.
That means the average adult can expect to move once every 10 years (which is a bad way to look at it because the odds drop as you age), or perhaps more like the average adult can now expect to move about 5 times in their adult lifetime. That doesn't seem all that high to me, but I guess YYMV.
If you read TFA (which you won't do, so I did it for you), they largely put it down to millenials, who are moving significantly less (although still far more than the average over all ages) than young people of previous generations. OTW: This is yet another "Millenials are killing X" headline.
Of course we've seen pretty much every one of those are really down to that generation being far poorer and more unemployed than similar generations were at that same point in their lives. There just aren't the opportunities there used to be for young people. This ain't their fault, and the headlines really should be blaming the people with power and resources in this society, not the victims.
If your interests are entirely serial, and not time sensitive, that might work OK. Most humans aren't like that.
Example: I'm a Tottenham Hotspur fan. To watch their games, I have to do the following:
Regular league games against big teams: Over-the-air (can't get where I live) or local cable provider monopoly that carries the main NBC affiliate.
Regular league games against decent teams: Cable or streaming service that provides NBCSN and friends. About $40 a month.
Regular league games against poor teams: Requires NBCGold+. $50 a year.
Champions League games against top teams: Cable or streaming service that provides Turner channels. Streamers that do that and NBCSn are more like $60 a month
Champions League games against other teams: FuboTV, or streaming service that provides Spanish-language channels
League Cup games: ESPN+, $5 a month.
These games are all interspersed with each other, sometimes in the same week. Can't just binge and drop.
US National Team fan too? In that case, you'll need ESPN channels, and beIn (which most streaming services don't provide).
But wait, what if I'm a rounded individual and like other things too?
Star Trek - CBS All Access - $6
Critical Role - Amazon/Twitch Prime - $13 a month
Game of Thrones - HBOGo - $15 a month
American Gods - Starz - $9 a month
Marvel or DC superhero dramas - Neflix - $8-15 a month
Next year Marvel - Disney - $?
...
The "..." is of course the real problem here. The year after next, even more stuff will get yanked out of free YouTube and Netflix, and more the year after that. As soon as something gets a loyal audience, someone is going to use it to leverage more money from you with a new service. Endless fractal splintering.
In the literal sense, languages are not physical things that can themselves have speeds. It only makes sense to talk about the code generated by specific compilers, and that depends on a lot of factors, language design only being one.
In the practical sense, Fortran compiler vendors care far more about optimization because of their target audience, their language is not hampered by C's aliasing issues, and most research into compiler optimization was done using Fortran compilers. I'm not a fan of the language myself, but its simply a fact that the code generated by it for the same purpose on the same platform with all helpful optimization options turned on will almost always be either as fast or faster than the C equivalent. There are several other languages (eg: Ada and a lot of the Wirth languages) that would be in this boat too if they had Fortran's first and third advantages.
C only looks "fast" if you compare its code to that produced by completely different types of languages. Compare rabbits to rabbits, and it doesn't do so well.
That's an odd comment. Very few native compiled system's programming languages include garbage collectors. Those are features of higher-level languages like Scheme, or VM languages like Java. Again, this comment, like the one I was responding to, seems to have originated out of ignorance of the other options.
For example: Both Ada and Modula-2 give system software developers the ability to specify to the bit how records are laid out. Given that this is pretty much required for low-level protocol-based communications (particularly with memory-mapped hardware), and that's supposedly C's niche, you'd think C would have this ability too, right? It doesn't. You have to either use pointer tricks or just bash on a struct until it does what you want, and pray no future compiler version scrambles the layout.
C's main advantages as a system programming language has always been the ease of creating the compilers, and its installed base. The language itself kind of sucks.
C is lightning fast and is the tool for when you know what you're doing.
C's good for situations where your development machine or target for some reason can't handle a smarter compiler. Its actually *too* low level for best optimization, as it forces the user to specify too much detail and provides too much unnecessary aliasing capabilities.
It just looks blazingly fast if you only compare it to interpreted or VM-based languages.
If you look at it even closer, its not at odds at all, because they didn't look at any of those things (eg: heart disease incidence) that those other studies looked at. They just looked at deaths attributable to alcohol.
The fact that deaths attributable to alcohol is at a minimum when you don't drink isn't exactly a result that should be making news. I could make a study finding the exact same thing about Kale.
It used to be the state of "Georgia", but when it got taken over by the geniuses who instituted the current voting system, the first thing they did was what they'd always dreamed of doing when they got their own special state, they named it "George". Followed closely by "Hugging and petting him and squeezing him."
We are a family of 5 in a pretty big house (benefit of not living in Silly Valley). The only way anyone is gonna hear a door knock is if they are in the living room and don't have the TV up very loud, or in one of the other downstairs rooms and the kids are all either asleep or out of the house (so its super quiet).
Our door is solid wood too, so knocking on it hard hurts a bit, and it doesn't resonate much when you do it. Either way, a muted knock is much easier to ignore (on purpose or not) than a loud-ass doorbell. I've known engineers who used to achieve the equivalent with their phones at their desks by stuffing paper inside the phone bell (yes, back in the 90's our phones used to have real physical bells in them). Much easier to ignore that way, and much less disruptive to everyone else.
Doorbells are like telephones: They enable completely random people to interrupt whatever you are doing whenever they feel like it to deal with their wants. People only put up with these interruption devices because they grew up with this kind of shenanigans as "normal."
When I bought my current house, the doorbell didn't work.
Attempting to connect it causes the ringer to go continuously, so there's a good chance its miswired (or the switch is borked). I just (re)disconnected it and vowed to get it fixed when I got the motivation to take the trouble/expense to do so. So basically, when the day came that someone actually came to my door to interact with me positively without trying to get something out of me, and they couldn't have just as well left a message for me to get to later. In other words, I needed to be happy afterwards that I'd interrupted what I was doing to interact with them, and didn't want to miss out on an experience like that again.
I've now lived in the house for 20 years with no doorbell.
...that company would likely find itself sued. Quick history: What enabled Ralph Nader to found his first consumer organization was his invasion of privacy lawsuit after GM got caught tapping his phones.
There's a REASON all those telecom companies insist on getting warrants before turning over personal info, and it isn't because they are all good citizens.
I'd like to think that if the intelligence agencies devoted their time and effort to helping companies identify security weaknesses and shore them up,...
You would like to think that but lets make no bones about it. The intelligence and LEA agencies are here for one purpose only.
Gathering intelligence. That is literally their job.
You might think it would be nice if some agency spend taxpayer $ all day helping software vendors to harden their OS's, and you may even be right. But no such agency exists today, and if Congress were to create one, it would most likely be a separate agency.
He was just being careful. From the CIA's perspective its the attack on the USA itself that's important. Figuring out what would have happened without it is an issue for academics, not them.
Yes, its true that there was Russian interference from the left too. Most of that was in the service of promoting Sanders, and promoting the idea that he got cheated somehow. The one thing they did NOT do was help Clinton in any way. She was viewed as an enemy since the State Department (under her leadership) took several actions that were viewed as politically hostile to Putin.
So basically the goals here were 1- Destabilize the USA and 2 - Prevent their least favorite candidate from getting elected.
There's nothing new about this. Destabilizing strong neighbors is diplomacy 101. Its also an inherently hostile act though. Countries get invaded for far less. So the question here is, is there any way to get Russia to stop it short of military action? Or is the USA just gonna lay back and take it?
Slashdot Mirror
Kaspersky has had a stellar reputation in the community for two decades. They've consistently been one of the top cybersecurity researchers in the world. That being said, who knows, maybe Putin has an office at their HQ, but all this FUD without a shred of evidence whatsoever isn't helping anything.
This is sort of missing the point. There is no real rule-of-law in Russia right now, so any company or person operating out of that country is completely at the mercy of the whims of Putin. Kaspersky could be the greatest defender of free-speech and computer security the world has ever known 99% of the time, but if the day comes (or has come) when Putin wants something out of a computer, and he wants Kaspersky's software to quietly do it, the guy has literally no recourse.
The post (suspiciously) left out the most important explanatory part of TFA:
"The transportation sector held its title as the largest source of US emissions for the third year running, as robust growth in demand for diesel and jet fuel offset a modest decline in gasoline consumption," Rhodium wrote. Industrial emissions from various types of manufacturing as well as emissions from buildings both saw significant increases in their carbon emissions in 2018.
...
In 2018, gasoline demand decreased by just 0.1 percent. But growth in the US trucking industry increased diesel demand by 3.1 percent, and demand for air travel increased jet fuel demand by 3 percent.
I'd be much more worried about a White House advisor spouting nonsense if we had a White House that actually listened to advice.
With this administration, if the Big T himself didn't say it, its just meaningless noise. And sometimes even if he DID say it.
Yes, they do. If you want proof, go check any political post from late 2015, and set your threshold to +5. You'll see an inexplicable love for Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. If you want to see the more typical /. skepticism of those people, you'll have to jack it down to -1.
Russians had /. completely pwned the last 2 months of the election.
In the US, if you act as a foreign agent without registering as such with the US Justice Dept., you are considered a "covert foreign agent.". If you ever find yourself defending the nuance of difference between "covert foreign agent" and "spy", you really need to reexamine your priorities.
Hell. Trade them, I say. Putin's not happy with her for pleading guilty and giving up information to investigators. Let that spying bitch go back to Russia and so Putin can have her killed. What's the problem here?
The problem is she quite possibly has information that will be useful in court with the other targets (besides her and the other arrested and cooperating witnesses) of the Russian hacking investigation. The point of arresting her wasn't to take a spy off the streets, it was to be able to use the charges against her as leverage to get her cooperation in taking down some of the bigger fish in this ring. This is how conspiracy prosecutors work.
That will be unavailable to US prosecutors if she's conveniently back in Russia, traded by the boss of "US Person 1" (from her indictment papers) for a US citizen Russia purposely picked up for this exact reason. There will be no leverage to get her to help prosecute her former US contacts, and its quite likely (as you imply) she will end up even more inconveniently dead, like many other Russians involved in this affair..
Which means the next question is, if the POTUS agrees to "trade" a prisoner to a country who was otherwise perhaps going to cooperate with an investigation into his underlings, and possibly himself, is that interference in an investigation? The answer is "Yes", but its an innovative new way to do it.
The next question after that is, does anyone have the authority to refuse? I'm not sure the answer to that one. I'm thinking probably not, unless she perhaps has state charges against her too.
That means the average adult can expect to move once every 10 years (which is a bad way to look at it because the odds drop as you age), or perhaps more like the average adult can now expect to move about 5 times in their adult lifetime. That doesn't seem all that high to me, but I guess YYMV.
If you read TFA (which you won't do, so I did it for you), they largely put it down to millenials, who are moving significantly less (although still far more than the average over all ages) than young people of previous generations. OTW: This is yet another "Millenials are killing X" headline.
Of course we've seen pretty much every one of those are really down to that generation being far poorer and more unemployed than similar generations were at that same point in their lives. There just aren't the opportunities there used to be for young people. This ain't their fault, and the headlines really should be blaming the people with power and resources in this society, not the victims.
These games are all interspersed with each other, sometimes in the same week. Can't just binge and drop. US National Team fan too? In that case, you'll need ESPN channels, and beIn (which most streaming services don't provide). But wait, what if I'm a rounded individual and like other things too?
The "..." is of course the real problem here. The year after next, even more stuff will get yanked out of free YouTube and Netflix, and more the year after that. As soon as something gets a loyal audience, someone is going to use it to leverage more money from you with a new service. Endless fractal splintering.
And yet C is still faster than any other language
That is just not true in any sense.
In the literal sense, languages are not physical things that can themselves have speeds. It only makes sense to talk about the code generated by specific compilers, and that depends on a lot of factors, language design only being one.
In the practical sense, Fortran compiler vendors care far more about optimization because of their target audience, their language is not hampered by C's aliasing issues, and most research into compiler optimization was done using Fortran compilers. I'm not a fan of the language myself, but its simply a fact that the code generated by it for the same purpose on the same platform with all helpful optimization options turned on will almost always be either as fast or faster than the C equivalent. There are several other languages (eg: Ada and a lot of the Wirth languages) that would be in this boat too if they had Fortran's first and third advantages.
C only looks "fast" if you compare its code to that produced by completely different types of languages. Compare rabbits to rabbits, and it doesn't do so well.
That's an odd comment. Very few native compiled system's programming languages include garbage collectors. Those are features of higher-level languages like Scheme, or VM languages like Java. Again, this comment, like the one I was responding to, seems to have originated out of ignorance of the other options.
For example: Both Ada and Modula-2 give system software developers the ability to specify to the bit how records are laid out. Given that this is pretty much required for low-level protocol-based communications (particularly with memory-mapped hardware), and that's supposedly C's niche, you'd think C would have this ability too, right? It doesn't. You have to either use pointer tricks or just bash on a struct until it does what you want, and pray no future compiler version scrambles the layout.
C's main advantages as a system programming language has always been the ease of creating the compilers, and its installed base. The language itself kind of sucks.
C is lightning fast and is the tool for when you know what you're doing.
C's good for situations where your development machine or target for some reason can't handle a smarter compiler. Its actually *too* low level for best optimization, as it forces the user to specify too much detail and provides too much unnecessary aliasing capabilities.
It just looks blazingly fast if you only compare it to interpreted or VM-based languages.
Because of the open WiFi. But what about a regular household with many different users including minors and a WPA2 protected network?
This is why, for your own legal protection, you should always leave your WiFi open.
Trump senses a disturbance of the force. It felt as if millions of bots cried out in terror, and then were silenced.
Meanwhile, outside Internet Research Agency HQ in St. Petersburg...
That's funny...I don't remember an asteroid field here. Its not on any of the charts..."
This statement is at odds with some studies
If you look at it even closer, its not at odds at all, because they didn't look at any of those things (eg: heart disease incidence) that those other studies looked at. They just looked at deaths attributable to alcohol.
The fact that deaths attributable to alcohol is at a minimum when you don't drink isn't exactly a result that should be making news. I could make a study finding the exact same thing about Kale.
I'm betting people are happier in Denmark and Norway vs. Pakistan and Bangladesh
Yup, got it in one. Here's the world happiness list. Norway and Denmark are #2 and #3.
(Last year they were #1 and #2, but Finland made a big move)
Are there any deserts in Colorado? I've got a pair of gloves I can lend out.
"Tell me again about the ballots, George."
It used to be the state of "Georgia", but when it got taken over by the geniuses who instituted the current voting system, the first thing they did was what they'd always dreamed of doing when they got their own special state, they named it "George". Followed closely by "Hugging and petting him and squeezing him."
We are a family of 5 in a pretty big house (benefit of not living in Silly Valley). The only way anyone is gonna hear a door knock is if they are in the living room and don't have the TV up very loud, or in one of the other downstairs rooms and the kids are all either asleep or out of the house (so its super quiet).
Our door is solid wood too, so knocking on it hard hurts a bit, and it doesn't resonate much when you do it. Either way, a muted knock is much easier to ignore (on purpose or not) than a loud-ass doorbell. I've known engineers who used to achieve the equivalent with their phones at their desks by stuffing paper inside the phone bell (yes, back in the 90's our phones used to have real physical bells in them). Much easier to ignore that way, and much less disruptive to everyone else.
Doorbells are like telephones: They enable completely random people to interrupt whatever you are doing whenever they feel like it to deal with their wants. People only put up with these interruption devices because they grew up with this kind of shenanigans as "normal."
When I bought my current house, the doorbell didn't work.
Attempting to connect it causes the ringer to go continuously, so there's a good chance its miswired (or the switch is borked). I just (re)disconnected it and vowed to get it fixed when I got the motivation to take the trouble/expense to do so. So basically, when the day came that someone actually came to my door to interact with me positively without trying to get something out of me, and they couldn't have just as well left a message for me to get to later. In other words, I needed to be happy afterwards that I'd interrupted what I was doing to interact with them, and didn't want to miss out on an experience like that again.
I've now lived in the house for 20 years with no doorbell.
Its almost artistic how you manage to pack so much fail into two short sentences.
...that company would likely find itself sued. Quick history: What enabled Ralph Nader to found his first consumer organization was his invasion of privacy lawsuit after GM got caught tapping his phones.
There's a REASON all those telecom companies insist on getting warrants before turning over personal info, and it isn't because they are all good citizens.
I'd like to think that if the intelligence agencies devoted their time and effort to helping companies identify security weaknesses and shore them up,...
You would like to think that but lets make no bones about it. The intelligence and LEA agencies are here for one purpose only.
Gathering intelligence. That is literally their job.
You might think it would be nice if some agency spend taxpayer $ all day helping software vendors to harden their OS's, and you may even be right. But no such agency exists today, and if Congress were to create one, it would most likely be a separate agency.
He was just being careful. From the CIA's perspective its the attack on the USA itself that's important. Figuring out what would have happened without it is an issue for academics, not them.
Yes, its true that there was Russian interference from the left too. Most of that was in the service of promoting Sanders, and promoting the idea that he got cheated somehow. The one thing they did NOT do was help Clinton in any way. She was viewed as an enemy since the State Department (under her leadership) took several actions that were viewed as politically hostile to Putin.
So basically the goals here were 1- Destabilize the USA and 2 - Prevent their least favorite candidate from getting elected.
There's nothing new about this. Destabilizing strong neighbors is diplomacy 101. Its also an inherently hostile act though. Countries get invaded for far less. So the question here is, is there any way to get Russia to stop it short of military action? Or is the USA just gonna lay back and take it?