You're missing the point. The point is that even when the super sekrit spy agencies have access to all the unencrypted data, they can't use it to prevent these attacks (as demonstrated that they failed to use it here).
So what does removing encryption buy us:
The super sekrit spy agencies can in theory read it, but they also can't manage to use it effectively.
Criminals can potentially hack Google/Apple and gain access to my messaging history, and personal information, allowing them to steal all kinds of my things.
That's not a good pay off. The only way that there would be some pay off worth considering is if the spy agencies could actually use this information to prevent the attacks, and even in that case, the pay of is deeply questionable - identity fraud happens orders of magnitude more often than terrorist attacks, and can completely ruin people's lives. Making identity fraud easier for the pay off of occasionally preventing a terrorist attack doesn't sound like a reasonable pay off to me.
The Android API is some thousands of functions. Android and Google already implemented that API on top of Linux . I don't see any fundamental reason that a company with Microsoft's resources -couldn't- implement the same API as follows:
Android.textbox.Draw(blah, x, y) {
Winforms.textbox.Draw(x, y, blah); }
Simple... Android.textbox.Draw, and Winforms.textbox.Draw usually don't have the exact same semantics. In fact, usually the APIs are structurally different. Often there simply isn't analagous functionality on one or other platform.
Furthermore, even if you somehow magically managed to make all of that work out properly, you'd still be stuck with a bunch of functionality that's subtly different. The behaviour of the controls is subtly different, and that can make or break the functionality of an application.
No, he is attempting to provide political impetus to be able to make laws banning the use of end to end encrypted chat sessions, so that he can spy on everyone.
In europe, checks (cheques?) have basically been unused for a decade at this point - bank transfers are instant and free, so why would you pay someone by cheque?
The question isn't "is a fingerprint more secure than a password", it's "is a fingerprint more secure than no security". Most phone users didn't have any password on their device. Adding a fingerprint secured those devices.
The problem is not that there isn't a law about prevailing wage - there is. The problem is that the prevailing wage of generic IT consultants is low, while the prevailing wage of highly skilled software engineering specialists is high. The outsourcing companies are hiring moderately skilled software engineering specialists, into generic IT consulting roles at generic IT consulting prevailing wages. They are then selling services to other companies and displacing the highly skilled software engineering specialists.
The correct solution is to require that when an H1B's services are contracted out to another company, their wage must be at or above the prevailing wage for a generic IT consultant *and* at or above the wage of the job they are doing for the company they're being contracted to.
Then it will cease to be profitable for these outsourcing companies to hire in the indians.
Just like the government isn't paying for your internet connection in the UK, they're just stating that the ISPs aren't allowed to refuse to install one, no matter where you live.
They share *everything* except for an ALU. When 90% of the functionality of the core is not duplicated, it becomes pretty damn difficult to assert that it's actually 2 cores. Instead, it's 1 core with 2 ALUs.
There are only 4 instruction fetch units on the chip - that suggests 4 cores There are only 4 instruction decode units on the chip - that suggests 4 cores There are only 4 L1 caches on the chip - that suggests 4 cores There are only 4 floating point units on the chip - that suggests 4 cores The only thing there are 8 of, is ALUs, but an ALU is not in and of itself, a core.
The claim that it is 2 cores would be like intel claiming that their chips have twice as many cores, because they have multiple vector floating point units per core.
No, blame AMD. They were doing the same thing as Intel is doing with Hyperthreading (scheduling two cores worth of instructions on one actual physical core), just they were claiming that that meant it had twice as many cores, rather than being honest that it's a trick to get more efficiency out of one core.
However, when it's impossible to become educated, or employed (or potentially in the future, registered as existing, being able to travel,...) in any way really participate in society without it, then you really do have to consider internet access a fundamental right.
If other course as the university use the more expensive text book, then fuck this guy... He's not made them buy a cheaper textbook, he's made them buy two textbooks, one of which is very expensive.
So what you're saying is that... people without the skill set to beat up barbarian hordes were screwed by all out competition, and so they set up an organisation to band together and fight it?
Frankly, my mind boggles at the idea of people like you. Does it never occur to you that the supply/demand balance of jobs is not in the favour of a lot of people with common skill sets?
Governments exist exactly to protect people who would otherwise be screwed by all out competition. Here's a great example of a group being screwed, now the law is helping them. This is exactly how it's meant to work.
Yeh... most customers would rather skip the haggling... and get a low price anyway. That's not going to happen though. Instead, ditching the dealers would just mean everyone gets a car for RRP (which is far above the average paid).
It seems easy to circumvent. The bank asks them to be "reasonably" available. The level of availability that's reasonable is... not being available. So, just don't provide them with any help.
No, the BBC does a reasonable job of being unbiased. They don't get it right all the time, and certainly, in general they have a slight leftward lean, but they do a far far far better job than any channel beholden to people who can choose whether to pay or not. You only need to look at CNN's coverage of who won the democratic debate as an example of how bad it can get if you're beholden to people choosing to pay you.
The "anyone who wants to pay" part is the problem. As soon as people can choose whether to pay or not (be they subscribers or advertisers), the BBC has to start tailoring their product to match the people making the choice to pay or not. As soon as that happens they have motivation to bias their reporting.
No - because then you have viewers choosing to pay or not pay the BBC. As soon as someone can make that choice, the BBC has to bias their broadcasting towards keeping that person paying, in order to keep their funding high. The whole point of the license fee is to avoid that situation.
The problem with that is that as soon as people can choose to pay it or not, the BBC has to pander to them to keep them paying - and they become biased. The reason that the BBC isn't as massively biased as CNN or Fox is because its funding is guaranteed, and it doesn't have to pander to audiences.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point. The point is that even when the super sekrit spy agencies have access to all the unencrypted data, they can't use it to prevent these attacks (as demonstrated that they failed to use it here).
So what does removing encryption buy us:
The super sekrit spy agencies can in theory read it, but they also can't manage to use it effectively.
Criminals can potentially hack Google/Apple and gain access to my messaging history, and personal information, allowing them to steal all kinds of my things.
That's not a good pay off. The only way that there would be some pay off worth considering is if the spy agencies could actually use this information to prevent the attacks, and even in that case, the pay of is deeply questionable - identity fraud happens orders of magnitude more often than terrorist attacks, and can completely ruin people's lives. Making identity fraud easier for the pay off of occasionally preventing a terrorist attack doesn't sound like a reasonable pay off to me.
It means encryption where the vendor of the encryption software has zero knowledge of the key.
All they had to do was write something similar to WINE that took every Android call and did it natively.
You realise that Wine is 1.4 million lines of code, and *still* doesn't accurately implement all the windows SDKs, right?
That's not an "all" you have to do.
The Android API is some thousands of functions. Android and Google already implemented that API on top of Linux . I don't see any fundamental reason that a company with Microsoft's resources -couldn't- implement the same API as follows:
Android.textbox.Draw(blah, x, y) {
Winforms.textbox.Draw(x, y, blah);
}
Simple... Android.textbox.Draw, and Winforms.textbox.Draw usually don't have the exact same semantics. In fact, usually the APIs are structurally different. Often there simply isn't analagous functionality on one or other platform.
Furthermore, even if you somehow magically managed to make all of that work out properly, you'd still be stuck with a bunch of functionality that's subtly different. The behaviour of the controls is subtly different, and that can make or break the functionality of an application.
Apparently the last time you checked was in 2004. Hyper threading gets you a lot more than a 10% gain on modern CPUs.
No, he is attempting to provide political impetus to be able to make laws banning the use of end to end encrypted chat sessions, so that he can spy on everyone.
Checks are still a thing?
In europe, checks (cheques?) have basically been unused for a decade at this point - bank transfers are instant and free, so why would you pay someone by cheque?
Except that you don't - because the lack of cache, instruction fetch, and instruction decode units to keep up with the work load prevents this.
The question isn't "is a fingerprint more secure than a password", it's "is a fingerprint more secure than no security". Most phone users didn't have any password on their device. Adding a fingerprint secured those devices.
That wouldn't solve the problem here.
The problem is not that there isn't a law about prevailing wage - there is. The problem is that the prevailing wage of generic IT consultants is low, while the prevailing wage of highly skilled software engineering specialists is high. The outsourcing companies are hiring moderately skilled software engineering specialists, into generic IT consulting roles at generic IT consulting prevailing wages. They are then selling services to other companies and displacing the highly skilled software engineering specialists.
The correct solution is to require that when an H1B's services are contracted out to another company, their wage must be at or above the prevailing wage for a generic IT consultant *and* at or above the wage of the job they are doing for the company they're being contracted to.
Then it will cease to be profitable for these outsourcing companies to hire in the indians.
Just like the government isn't paying for your internet connection in the UK, they're just stating that the ISPs aren't allowed to refuse to install one, no matter where you live.
They share *everything* except for an ALU. When 90% of the functionality of the core is not duplicated, it becomes pretty damn difficult to assert that it's actually 2 cores. Instead, it's 1 core with 2 ALUs.
There are only 4 instruction fetch units on the chip - that suggests 4 cores
There are only 4 instruction decode units on the chip - that suggests 4 cores
There are only 4 L1 caches on the chip - that suggests 4 cores
There are only 4 floating point units on the chip - that suggests 4 cores
The only thing there are 8 of, is ALUs, but an ALU is not in and of itself, a core.
The claim that it is 2 cores would be like intel claiming that their chips have twice as many cores, because they have multiple vector floating point units per core.
No, blame AMD. They were doing the same thing as Intel is doing with Hyperthreading (scheduling two cores worth of instructions on one actual physical core), just they were claiming that that meant it had twice as many cores, rather than being honest that it's a trick to get more efficiency out of one core.
However, when it's impossible to become educated, or employed (or potentially in the future, registered as existing, being able to travel, ...) in any way really participate in society without it, then you really do have to consider internet access a fundamental right.
If other course as the university use the more expensive text book, then fuck this guy... He's not made them buy a cheaper textbook, he's made them buy two textbooks, one of which is very expensive.
So what you're saying is that... people without the skill set to beat up barbarian hordes were screwed by all out competition, and so they set up an organisation to band together and fight it?
Frankly, my mind boggles at the idea of people like you. Does it never occur to you that the supply/demand balance of jobs is not in the favour of a lot of people with common skill sets?
Governments exist exactly to protect people who would otherwise be screwed by all out competition. Here's a great example of a group being screwed, now the law is helping them. This is exactly how it's meant to work.
Yeh... most customers would rather skip the haggling... and get a low price anyway. That's not going to happen though. Instead, ditching the dealers would just mean everyone gets a car for RRP (which is far above the average paid).
Depends... If you're in Europe, you're right. If you're in the US, the parent poster is right.
It seems easy to circumvent. The bank asks them to be "reasonably" available. The level of availability that's reasonable is ... not being available. So, just don't provide them with any help.
More likely, the original poster simply has his DNS misconfigured in some weird way, and doesn't know it.
No, the BBC does a reasonable job of being unbiased. They don't get it right all the time, and certainly, in general they have a slight leftward lean, but they do a far far far better job than any channel beholden to people who can choose whether to pay or not. You only need to look at CNN's coverage of who won the democratic debate as an example of how bad it can get if you're beholden to people choosing to pay you.
The "anyone who wants to pay" part is the problem. As soon as people can choose whether to pay or not (be they subscribers or advertisers), the BBC has to start tailoring their product to match the people making the choice to pay or not. As soon as that happens they have motivation to bias their reporting.
No - because then you have viewers choosing to pay or not pay the BBC. As soon as someone can make that choice, the BBC has to bias their broadcasting towards keeping that person paying, in order to keep their funding high. The whole point of the license fee is to avoid that situation.
The problem with that is that as soon as people can choose to pay it or not, the BBC has to pander to them to keep them paying - and they become biased. The reason that the BBC isn't as massively biased as CNN or Fox is because its funding is guaranteed, and it doesn't have to pander to audiences.