Oh how about this political attack - I predict the key used for all Chinese military cyberwarfare will be the Lenovo key.
I predict that the Lenovo key is more likely to be used by those who don't like the PRC. The PRC military would be more likely to use the key of an ROC company.
You trust *.microsoft.com to keep it safe, well that's a little optimistic of you, but whatever. The problem is the random collection of "friends of microsoft" in the govt and govt contractors trying to write undetectable cyberwarfare software. So now you have to trust all of *.mil and quite a bit of *.com not to screw up.
Probably best not to assume that such "friends" will be confined to the US (and Israeli) governments either. Or that "friends of friends" or "friends of friends of friends" will not also be a potential issue.
Or Sony's private key for the PS3? Well, they implemented their crypto wrong, one of the supposed-to-be-random parameters was instead hardcoded as a constant. Oops.
Was this before or after someone did the same sort of thing in Debian? Getting crypto correct is hard, even with OSS, where proprietary software is involved it's likely to be several orders of magnitude harder.
The 77 cents on the dollar argument is based on adding up the incomes of all the working women in the country, dividing it by the number of women in the country, and doing the same for the men. The actual calculation ignores experience, ability, time on the job, nature of the work, etc.
It also ignores other forms of income, including public "welfare", pensions, (ex-)spousal support (including that described as "child support") even that with a married couple any income can be the joint property of both. What this does demonstrate is that it is perfectly possible to come up with a number which whilst important to many people is in effect meaningless. Consider that the "average" temperature for somewhere is typically defined as the midpoint between highest and lowest measurements made in a day. Not only does this discard a lot of data there are also at least five possible ways of defining "day". That's before you even consider how "average global temperature" and "average annual temperature" are derived. Again great importance being attached to numbers which may or may not me.an much at all.
They are religious zealots who wish THEIR world view on everyone else. So when the water is lapping at their door, maybe then the religious nitwits will understand the real ramifications of climate change.
There's a certain irony in critiquing "religious nitwits" with a doomsday senario which could be taken from a religious text. An unlikely one given that changes in sea level relative to land appear to be entirely local including both positive and negative changes. As well as no change over periods of centuries.
In Science you are either right or wrong, your proof shouldn't rely on who or how many other scientists agree with you - you either have proven your theory or not.
If evidence comes along which your theory dosn't explain then you need a new theory. Which may be anything from a minor modification to starting from scratch. It shouldn't matter how many people liked your original theory, how often it has been "proved" or even who came up with the problematic evidence in the first place.
If you rely on concensus, you haven't proven it.
Also some people might suspect that not even you believe it's correct:)
Not if they have any training in climate science. If a microbiologist tells you that a physicist is wrong about quantum mechanics, that does not make the physicist's stance controversial.
Climate scientists seem to have rather more to say about physics (and microbiology) than microbiologists and physicists have to say about each other's work. The whole AGW theory depends on how photons interact with gas molecules in Earth' atmosphere. Whilst dismissing what the Sun is doing...
I wonder if the physicist in question would dismiss a critique of quantum mechanics out of hand. Even if they did they probably wouldn't be as rude as the average climate scientist.
You assume that if someone discounts a pro AGW scientist that they support the Anti-AGW scientist. This isn't the case.
Assuming that is the case is an expression of the poltical belief "if you are not with us you are against us". Similarly the latter can't assume "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (Both of which are false dichotomies.)
As a general rule, as statement of "I don't know if there is climate change because the issue is too politicized and there is too much money involved to trust any reports." will be attacked by the pro-AGW zealots.
As will something to the effect "Climate change has and will always happen. Whatever might be the cause this time, it makes sense to do what humans always have done and adapt to the conditions we find ourselves in.".
A mathematician can definitely pinpoint errors in reasoning on a variety of topics.
Especially if the reasoning involved mathematics. Which is certainly the case with "climate science". Indeed computer models, of anything, are applied mathematics.
Excuse me for asking, but... How is a climate change "specialist" any more a scientist than a physicist, a chemist, or a mathematician? If the latter three can widely pinpoint erroneous reasoning or methodology errors or incomplete data or anything else, I listen. If either in these three groups holds a Nobel price or a fields medal, I'm all ears open.
That might also especially be the case if a physicist is pointing out problems with the use of physics; a chemist is pointing out problems with the use of chemistry; a mathematician is pointing out problems with the use of mathematics; a computer scientist is pointing out problems with the use of computers; etc.
Part of the reason judge.me exists is because people doing contract work often deal with clients that live in other countries or other locations in the same country.
It can be possible to enforce judgments aginst an entity in a foreign country (especially if they have assets in your country). Does this website have any enforcement powers even if all parties are in the same country?
Climate change is one thing, there are people who argue it isn't even happening. The causes are another thing.
The evidence against climate change basically fell apart, and all but the looniest of loons now cling to the idea that it isn't happening.
There never was any evidence against climate change. But you do have plenty of people in effect claiming that it should not be happening...
What causes it is still in doubt, especially since we can't easily separate out whether the earth is in a cooling or warming period, or would be if the influence of man had not happened. The potential causes should be taught as one of those "as yet unresolved" aspects of science that the next generation may be able to give a final answer to. But they need to know there is a question.
The "consensus" group don't want questions instead they want faith that one specific human activity is changing climate in one specific way. So called "scientists" are acting more like a bunch of religious extremists.
That's why science doesn't rely on appeals to authority. Scientists have no authority and for every scientist there are a thousand looking to debunk their theories. Science works. Get over it.
Something which dosn't work this way isn't "science". No matter what the people involved want to be called. Appeals to authority (or "consensus") do not turn a psudo-science or psudo-scientist into an actual one.
And as you've said, system restore 2.0 won't stop them. And malware survive? It gets worse than that, some of the more vicious ones inject themselves right into the SR backup, and edit the backed up hive. Unless you can remove it fully, you're kinda shot. Which can also mean disabling SR.
System restore has been protecting malware ever since Microsoft introduced it.
Anyone know what this is about it's in the last paragraph "It's interesting to mention that these machines mostly run Windows XP and Windows 7 32 bit, but none of them run Windows 7 64 bit, which seems impervious against this and most other malware." Is that due to driver signing requirements?
Plenty of application software simply refuses to install/run with 64 bit Windows. There is a 64 bit version of XP, wonder if anyone has tested this platform.
Yes, consumers want quality. Part of quality includes being able to do whatever they want with a product, including making copies of it using their own resources (in this case, their own software, their own disks, etc)
The addition of these laws which restrict how consumers can use the product is a reduction in quality, and people discovered there's a way to get that quality back, so most went that way.
If someone is never going to buy something in the first place then they will never be a "customer" in the first place. (For reasons which include it not being on sale or the seller isn't prepared to even take someone's money unless they happen to be in the right part of the planet.) The whole "lost sales" argument is a false dichotomy which assumes that the options are "pirate" or "buy".
The Pearl Harbour attack was fought on US soil, when the US was trying to stay out of direct conflict in the war, was it not?
Depends if a country the US had previously invaded and occupied qualifies as "US soil".
The 9/11 attacks were on US soil, when the US was not at war with anyone in the Middle East/South West Asia, was it not?
How many of those allegedly involved were from either Afghanistan or Iraq? Then there's the first "9/11" in 1973.
forgetting that many wars that the US is involved in are either because: a) someone made attacks on US soil; b) someone attacked US citizens (eg. Iran hostage crisis)
This is the most corporate-friendly court in history. Whenever any case comes before them, you can bet your ass it'll be decided on what will most benefit their corporate buddies. I just hope no EULA-related cases reach the court prior to at least a couple of them kicking the bucket.
How does "corporate-friendly" work out when both (all) sides are corporations? e.g. Someone takes a proprietary software company to court of the basis that an EULA worded in such a way that is nonsensical between two corporations. (Especially if the software company is a much smaller corporation). Something like a multi-national claiming that "per user" equates to "one" in their case.
Not generally in small claims court. I believe most states limit damages to actual damages in small claims courts. You are generally also not allowed to have a lawyer.
Which is probably a bigger problem for a corporation than it is for an individual...
Class action lawsuits are nothing but a wealth stockpiling program for the 1%'ers that went to law school instead of Harvard Business. It doesn't help the consumer "class" that gets nothing but a coupon, while the lawyers make millions.
I can't understand how such suits are not also an advantage for the defendant. Since they only have one case, in one jurisdiction, to deal with. As opposed to possibly thousands of cases. At the very least they would need to send someone to lots of courts to avoid losing by default.
There's a well documented case of undercover police acting as agents provocateurs in Quebec City.
It also appears to be the rule that for every well published thwarted "terrorist plot" (included "underpants bomber 2") there is at least one undercover/informant/agent provocateur. There's also the simple fact that people involved here are the wrong religion for the mainstream media to call "terrorists". Even though that is exactly what they are.
Training games are meant to train forces. The officer in question basically went off-script in order to prove a point, which wasn't the concern of the exercise.
Wars don't tend to follow "scripts". Any really enemy won't follow your script...
Considering this news is 2-10 yrs old, and instead of actually creating a superior product they ripped off a very old but already well-known product, probably means these helicopters aren't that great.
Plenty of militaries (including the US) operate very old aircraft. The "newest" B52 is nearly 50 years old.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh how about this political attack - I predict the key used for all Chinese military cyberwarfare will be the Lenovo key.
I predict that the Lenovo key is more likely to be used by those who don't like the PRC. The PRC military would be more likely to use the key of an ROC company.
You trust *.microsoft.com to keep it safe, well that's a little optimistic of you, but whatever. The problem is the random collection of "friends of microsoft" in the govt and govt contractors trying to write undetectable cyberwarfare software. So now you have to trust all of *.mil and quite a bit of *.com not to screw up.
Probably best not to assume that such "friends" will be confined to the US (and Israeli) governments either. Or that "friends of friends" or "friends of friends of friends" will not also be a potential issue.
Or Sony's private key for the PS3? Well, they implemented their crypto wrong, one of the supposed-to-be-random parameters was instead hardcoded as a constant. Oops.
Was this before or after someone did the same sort of thing in Debian? Getting crypto correct is hard, even with OSS, where proprietary software is involved it's likely to be several orders of magnitude harder.
The 77 cents on the dollar argument is based on adding up the incomes of all the working women in the country, dividing it by the number of women in the country, and doing the same for the men. The actual calculation ignores experience, ability, time on the job, nature of the work, etc.
It also ignores other forms of income, including public "welfare", pensions, (ex-)spousal support (including that described as "child support") even that with a married couple any income can be the joint property of both.
What this does demonstrate is that it is perfectly possible to come up with a number which whilst important to many people is in effect meaningless.
Consider that the "average" temperature for somewhere is typically defined as the midpoint between highest and lowest measurements made in a day. Not only does this discard a lot of data there are also at least five possible ways of defining "day". That's before you even consider how "average global temperature" and "average annual temperature" are derived.
Again great importance being attached to numbers which may or may not me.an much at all.
They are religious zealots who wish THEIR world view on everyone else. So when the water is lapping at their door, maybe then the religious nitwits will understand the real ramifications of climate change.
There's a certain irony in critiquing "religious nitwits" with a doomsday senario which could be taken from a religious text.
An unlikely one given that changes in sea level relative to land appear to be entirely local including both positive and negative changes. As well as no change over periods of centuries.
Why 2 sides to discussions that have been scientifically settled?
When was the last time that someone who claimed that anything was "scientifically settled" turned out to be correct?
In Science you are either right or wrong, your proof shouldn't rely on who or how many other scientists agree with you - you either have proven your theory or not.
:)
If evidence comes along which your theory dosn't explain then you need a new theory. Which may be anything from a minor modification to starting from scratch. It shouldn't matter how many people liked your original theory, how often it has been "proved" or even who came up with the problematic evidence in the first place.
If you rely on concensus, you haven't proven it.
Also some people might suspect that not even you believe it's correct
Not if they have any training in climate science. If a microbiologist tells you that a physicist is wrong about quantum mechanics, that does not make the physicist's stance controversial.
Climate scientists seem to have rather more to say about physics (and microbiology) than microbiologists and physicists have to say about each other's work. The whole AGW theory depends on how photons interact with gas molecules in Earth' atmosphere. Whilst dismissing what the Sun is doing...
I wonder if the physicist in question would dismiss a critique of quantum mechanics out of hand. Even if they did they probably wouldn't be as rude as the average climate scientist.
You assume that if someone discounts a pro AGW scientist that they support the Anti-AGW scientist. This isn't the case.
Assuming that is the case is an expression of the poltical belief "if you are not with us you are against us". Similarly the latter can't assume "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (Both of which are false dichotomies.)
As a general rule, as statement of "I don't know if there is climate change because the issue is too politicized and there is too much money involved to trust any reports." will be attacked by the pro-AGW zealots.
As will something to the effect "Climate change has and will always happen. Whatever might be the cause this time, it makes sense to do what humans always have done and adapt to the conditions we find ourselves in.".
A mathematician can definitely pinpoint errors in reasoning on a variety of topics.
Especially if the reasoning involved mathematics. Which is certainly the case with "climate science". Indeed computer models, of anything, are applied mathematics.
Excuse me for asking, but... How is a climate change "specialist" any more a scientist than a physicist, a chemist, or a mathematician? If the latter three can widely pinpoint erroneous reasoning or methodology errors or incomplete data or anything else, I listen. If either in these three groups holds a Nobel price or a fields medal, I'm all ears open.
That might also especially be the case if a physicist is pointing out problems with the use of physics; a chemist is pointing out problems with the use of chemistry; a mathematician is pointing out problems with the use of mathematics; a computer scientist is pointing out problems with the use of computers; etc.
Part of the reason judge.me exists is because people doing contract work often deal with clients that live in other countries or other locations in the same country.
It can be possible to enforce judgments aginst an entity in a foreign country (especially if they have assets in your country).
Does this website have any enforcement powers even if all parties are in the same country?
Climate change is one thing, there are people who argue it isn't even happening. The causes are another thing.
The evidence against climate change basically fell apart, and all but the looniest of loons now cling to the idea that it isn't happening.
There never was any evidence against climate change. But you do have plenty of people in effect claiming that it should not be happening...
What causes it is still in doubt, especially since we can't easily separate out whether the earth is in a cooling or warming period, or would be if the influence of man had not happened. The potential causes should be taught as one of those "as yet unresolved" aspects of science that the next generation may be able to give a final answer to. But they need to know there is a question.
The "consensus" group don't want questions instead they want faith that one specific human activity is changing climate in one specific way. So called "scientists" are acting more like a bunch of religious extremists.
That's why science doesn't rely on appeals to authority. Scientists have no authority and for every scientist there are a thousand looking to debunk their theories. Science works. Get over it.
Something which dosn't work this way isn't "science". No matter what the people involved want to be called.
Appeals to authority (or "consensus") do not turn a psudo-science or psudo-scientist into an actual one.
And as you've said, system restore 2.0 won't stop them. And malware survive? It gets worse than that, some of the more vicious ones inject themselves right into the SR backup, and edit the backed up hive. Unless you can remove it fully, you're kinda shot. Which can also mean disabling SR.
System restore has been protecting malware ever since Microsoft introduced it.
Anyone know what this is about it's in the last paragraph "It's interesting to mention that these machines mostly run Windows XP and Windows 7 32 bit, but none of them run Windows 7 64 bit, which seems impervious against this and most other malware." Is that due to driver signing requirements?
Plenty of application software simply refuses to install/run with 64 bit Windows. There is a 64 bit version of XP, wonder if anyone has tested this platform.
Yes, consumers want quality. Part of quality includes being able to do whatever they want with a product, including making copies of it using their own resources (in this case, their own software, their own disks, etc)
The addition of these laws which restrict how consumers can use the product is a reduction in quality, and people discovered there's a way to get that quality back, so most went that way.
If someone is never going to buy something in the first place then they will never be a "customer" in the first place. (For reasons which include it not being on sale or the seller isn't prepared to even take someone's money unless they happen to be in the right part of the planet.) The whole "lost sales" argument is a false dichotomy which assumes that the options are "pirate" or "buy".
The Pearl Harbour attack was fought on US soil, when the US was trying to stay out of direct conflict in the war, was it not?
Depends if a country the US had previously invaded and occupied qualifies as "US soil".
The 9/11 attacks were on US soil, when the US was not at war with anyone in the Middle East/South West Asia, was it not?
How many of those allegedly involved were from either Afghanistan or Iraq? Then there's the first "9/11" in 1973.
forgetting that many wars that the US is involved in are either because: a) someone made attacks on US soil; b) someone attacked US citizens (eg. Iran hostage crisis)
Nothing to do with "Operation Ajax" then...
America's policy used to be America's ours, rest of the world can do what it wants. And we should of stayed that way.
That dosn't appear to have been actual US foreign policy for a long time. At least as far back as the Spanish-American war.
This is the most corporate-friendly court in history. Whenever any case comes before them, you can bet your ass it'll be decided on what will most benefit their corporate buddies. I just hope no EULA-related cases reach the court prior to at least a couple of them kicking the bucket.
How does "corporate-friendly" work out when both (all) sides are corporations? e.g. Someone takes a proprietary software company to court of the basis that an EULA worded in such a way that is nonsensical between two corporations. (Especially if the software company is a much smaller corporation). Something like a multi-national claiming that "per user" equates to "one" in their case.
Not generally in small claims court. I believe most states limit damages to actual damages in small claims courts. You are generally also not allowed to have a lawyer.
Which is probably a bigger problem for a corporation than it is for an individual...
Class action lawsuits are nothing but a wealth stockpiling program for the 1%'ers that went to law school instead of Harvard Business. It doesn't help the consumer "class" that gets nothing but a coupon, while the lawyers make millions.
I can't understand how such suits are not also an advantage for the defendant. Since they only have one case, in one jurisdiction, to deal with. As opposed to possibly thousands of cases. At the very least they would need to send someone to lots of courts to avoid losing by default.
There's a well documented case of undercover police acting as agents provocateurs in Quebec City.
It also appears to be the rule that for every well published thwarted "terrorist plot" (included "underpants bomber 2") there is at least one undercover/informant/agent provocateur.
There's also the simple fact that people involved here are the wrong religion for the mainstream media to call "terrorists". Even though that is exactly what they are.
Training games are meant to train forces. The officer in question basically went off-script in order to prove a point, which wasn't the concern of the exercise.
Wars don't tend to follow "scripts". Any really enemy won't follow your script...
Considering this news is 2-10 yrs old, and instead of actually creating a superior product they ripped off a very old but already well-known product, probably means these helicopters aren't that great.
Plenty of militaries (including the US) operate very old aircraft. The "newest" B52 is nearly 50 years old.