GIGO - means nothing more and nothing less than that you can never expect valid output (with the possible exception variations on "ERROR Invalid entry" ) unless you have valid inputs.
In the past on single user system or even on more restrictive shared systems there were lots of places where it was "acceptable" to just apply whatever algorithm your program does to the input and produce the outputs.. Were expected a an integer and someone sends the string 'A' well guess what that is still the bytes 65,00,?,? and that is still going to be 10905????? something as an integer. So you can still do math on that... The results are meaningless but so what..
On connected shared systems that might be a problem if it messes up others data, where as before you were only the victim of your own carelessness. To that end YES if you are implementing an program that is network connected you DO have some additional responsibility to perhaps not behave unpredictably even with invalid inputs or invalid combinations of inputs. You need to send that Error or do nothing as appropriate.
Yes but there is no rule that says you have to use cheap ass earbuds. I take a lot of flights and I don't mind dragging along my expensive ass noise canceling super oral head set..
I want to place some emphasis here that I am not recording in public. I am recording as directed to do so within the confines of a private building at a private business in specific places within said building that are designated secure areas. Employees who work in these areas have agreed to follow a number of rules and agreed to various conditions such as "you may be recorded at anytime while on the floor" as a condition of employment there.
My point was simply that the objection people had to Google Glass, 6 years ago is largely moot. There is absolutely no social prohibition now on caring a smart phone and using it just about everywhere in public. If one is not a total putz its easily possible to record most things discretely using that device. The fear people had that glass users were recording them, is really silly unless you have similar reactions everytime an smart phone emerges from a purse or pocket.
yet I can walk around with my smart phone recording away, either up near my face like i am reading something on it; or just in hand down near my hip recording both what is in front of me and behind me with NO INDICATION at all. I use this all the time when I do walks around building for security audits. If you have something that looks camera like suddenly everyone is locking their desktops; ensuring their privacy screens are over their monitors like they are supposed to be; putting their badges back in their pockets rather than leaving them out on their desks etc... On a little discretion with the smart phone OOTH and you can bust people left and right...
Its almost like people don't really EVERYONE is walking around with good quality video cameras all the time now, and the ability to record for hours...
Most of the comments here are really missing the point. The moral of the story is If it needs external services to function YOU DON'T OWN IT. You can never OWN it.
Even if its OSS you might not be able to own it. At least there you'd have shot anyway at being able to implement some kind of patch to get whatever data it needs from some other source, or be able to obtain enough information to implement your own replacement service and or change where it points replace whatever certificate it requires etc.
Still we need some consume protections that require disclosing of external service dependencies and/or some rules requiring companies to support/maintain the services their products depend on for some minimum period of time as long as they are going concern.
One possibility is increasing density. PV installations take up a lot of space. Commercial operators don't want to do things like put them up high and build things under them because it increases and complicates maintenance. Residential operators probably don't keep them at optimal efficiency because they fail to get on the roof and clean them etc.
If a cheap system was designed that allowed collecting the light over a smaller area and then delivering it to PV cells that could for instance be stacked...There might be some gains to be had. You could gather light more efficiently ( in terms of sq ft ) with a round lenses and project it on to flat cells. Without really knowing anything, I'd be skeptical of the cost/payback but its possible there is something to this along these lines.
Well right, that is why I said *truly* because what those of us on slashdot define as end to end; that the sender and named recipients of the message possess the keys required to decipher the content and nobody else does and what Zuck mees could be different.
However as others point out we are talking about mobile apps here. These are closed source things are platforms where its difficult to even inspect the filesystem on your own device. The apps themselves are obfuscated and protected from decompile and inspection (android) and cipgered themselves (IOS). The only way to really find out what they are doing is to instrument them which means running them on a device you have rooted (using super sketch software from dubious providence in almost all cases).
So FB can easily push a change that hand them all the keys or gives them a backdoor at anytime. Hell they might not even need to change the binary. Just allow the web view these apps use to load some JS that sends the messages to an additional recipient. They idea you are going to have any real protection againt FB spying on you using these things or anyone else doing it at least with FB's cooperation is silly for the start.
If its truly "end-to-end" than no - facebook, the telco others can't see it. As far as government goes they really are mostly satisfied with the fact they can see that Jim chatted with Kathy, how often and when.
That is probably "good enough" for facebook's social graph and combined with other data harvesting efforts ad targeting.
What it seems incompatible with is their stated desire to do anything about what they believe is "fake news" or online harassment.
The other angle I don't get is for all the negative press Zuck and facebook are getting If I were him I'd be concerned, about regulators getting heavy handed. I'd be concerned certain demographics might abandon a platform etc. I would want to keep the properties separate for those reasons. If I can't keep the kiddies on fb, I can at least keep them on watsapp, etc..
I agree with all that. But my problem at this point is that we HAVE a problem. This platforms constitute and emergency for our society. I think a lot people don't realize how serious a problem this actually is right now.
Its a frog in the pot, type situation. We have got used to this stuff over time. If you plucked someone out of 2008 and showed them the events of 2016-19 so far they'd be be shocked at how web 2.0 is used and its impacts on our society and individuals. Yet by 2k8 web 2.0 was pretty well definable.
I think the courts have had a decade to play with this and it has gone to trial in a number of lower courts, who have applied various existing laws. The legislative branch isn't going to solve the problem, they have had a decade to act. The SCOTUS has a cases to review but they are never going to get some petridish examples of decisions and outcomes because these are global scoped companies.
This is probably a key question the court really should 1) take up 2) issue an expansive ruling on
We really need to nail down just exactly when you are a publish responsible for the content editorial or otherwise in your publication and when you are a platform
The present body of the law is IMHO a bit ambiguous. We have a number of giant concerns that grew up by being platforms but increasingly adopt behaviors that are more and more publication like while still claiming their protection as platforms. They then hide behind algorithms that at one point might have been neutral but now are clearly tinkered with actively to obtain outcomes more palatable to their leadership; for good or ill.
YELP here is a good example their model is basically pay us and we make sure more favorable reviews about you business get more eyeballs. Oh sure you can use the legal system to get out right defamatory content removed but in lots of cases just policing the various platforms for that is a chore; and the safe harbors these sites enjoy are simply to expansive in that even if you can get courts to make them stop defaming you, there is little ability to recoup any damages.
The near total lack of accountability of these entities is largely responsible for the absolutely corrosive political and social atmosphere that is rapidly taking over. There needs to be limits put in place on what these guys can do in terms of choosing what content to promote, how often they can disseminate it, and to what degree they pass on the civil responsibility for it thru to authors. I understand the Courts reluctance to rule on these cases using existing laws. Judgements shoehorning YELP, facebook, Twitter, Google, et al onto law body developed for news papers, television/radio broadcasters, telephone operators and the like is far from ideal. The trouble is the legislative organs of our government wont do a damn thing about this because they think the mobs mentality these guys create is useful to them getting reelected; and that goes for both sides of the isle.
The big fish get to issue some token apology and are offered a do-over when they are on the wrong end of things, or they can parlay the situation into one of - there is no such thing as bad publicity. That works if you are Donald Trump, Kevin Hart, or Elizabeth Warren, it does not work so well if you are Joe/Jane Sixpack
I think in the consumer software space there is very real conflict between security updates and functional requirements.
Uses chose software because it did something they wanted to do. The home computer is not purely entertainment for a lot people. Many of them actually do care that they can create the weekly mailer, exchange very documents with people in their only hobby group - which could range from pictures to CAD drawings and 3d printing instructions.
The trouble is these days installing that update could do any number of things. Maybe a feature you used is out right dropped or is only available in the paid "pro" version now; requires an active internet connection when it did not before etc etc. Maybe is just works and looks different and learning some new work flow or rebuilding all your scripts and macros just isn't something you want to do this month. If the changes don't work for you to bad; no security fixes then. Also if you only have one system and don't know other people doing exactly what you are doing often its a mystery as to what version next will bring. Again if its a process that is critical to you, can your risk updating?
At least before critical system components like Windows itself could be pretty well depended on not push major user visible changes or changes likely to break other applications and API functions in updates. Increasingly this too is changing and its no surprise people respond by not updating.
What does MS do in response make it more and more difficult to turn off auto updates; yes I suppose it keeps people on the update train a little longer but it does nothing to build confidence. Increasingly it drives the to other platforms which they will then not install updates on with our without justification.
Don't forget to that technical issues aside in a lot cases people are trading one possible threat, local law enforcement and their own ISP where they have some contractual, statutory, and constitutional/lawful recourse against if "something" was done to them for some actor(s) in a foreign country where:
1) you may or may not be granted legal rights and protections 2) exposes you to foreign surveillance powers by own own government since your traffic is no longer domestic 3) generally face a more costly and difficult process for accessing any legal remedy
Basically the VPN guys can pretty much abuse you in any way they like. Sure you can quit using their VPN more easily than you can quit your ISP. You have the lever so if they start spamming your with ads and stuff you have control there. If they are more subtle than that and more nefarious and do something to you that isn't obvious though, chances are good there is NOTHING at all you can do about it; and they know that! Consider the incentives and disincentives. While I am not making a "if you have nothing to hide argument here" I am going to suggest that if whatever your reasons for wanting additional privacy fall short of criminal you might just be better off trusting your ISP and simply practicing good hygiene. IE - use the incognito mode in your browser as appropriate, patch your system, if you have to use 'sketchy sites' use a VM and revert the snapshot when you are done, be smart/think before your click.
Not to mention 10,000 years isn't really even the metric to be using. We have been watching the skies now with advanced instruments longer than 4 light years. If there was alien activity on the scale required to launch a giant probe like this in one of nearest neighboring systems you also have to factor in the probability that we will have failed to observer any other indications of advanced life there, through radiation etc.
Either we are talking about some pretty stealthy aliens, which raises the question how come the prove isn't stealth too, or if it is an alien probe it came from some place much further away.
Assuming it came from further away, it would have to be (I suspect) an order of magnitude older still; which makes it even less likely some alien culture sent it.
As a practical matter there may be limits to the speed we want to interact with the world around us. Just think of Twitter without the fraction of second delay between composing a message and tabbing over to the post button... Sometime a little friction is a good thing
Exactly Musk (and he is smart enough to know better) is conflating intelligence with access to information. They two are not the same. While its true the most intelligent person in the world still can't make good decisions without access to timely, and correct information; it does not work the other way round.
You can't give just anyone access to information and suddenly expect them to be smart. Stupid is as Stupid does. There are lot of smart phone running around this country and all I have to do is flip on the news for 5min to confirm its NOT making people wiser, if anything they are just letting people do more stupid faster.
pretty well actually. Most of what went into internal combustion engines had a lot in common with steam engines in terms of manufacture. steam engines by that point had reached a pretty high level of development.
Now materials sciences have advanced a lot and its possible to build much more efficient and much longer lived engines today but even the early models could get your buggy down the road or push your dingy across the cove. They offered pretty clear and obvious advantage over what they were replacing, a horse or men at oars; they could not requiring large boilers and reservoirs be deployed were steam could not be.
AI by contrast stacks up pretty poorly against the what its replacing in most cases "human intelligence." Very specialized "AIs" working in vary narrow domains perform well and best us because of speed and the ability to pull facts from large information stores directly but as far as a general intelligence goes nothing is anywhere near us meat bags, even child meat bags.
Yes he can, but those bills are not "must pass" if he vetos those bills basically nothing happens. In other words they don't offer an leverage. Supposes the president veto's some farm bill or some trade agreement: Do think Democrats are going to trade the political capital they have amassed grand standing over the wall to get that done? -No. A small group of people who needed that legislation will be abandon to suffer by both sides calculating they are not a large enough number of votes to move the needles next election cycle.
On the other hand the shutdown effects a lot of people in a lot of ways. Voters WILL want a budget enacted. Whose base its "hurts" more is a good question. Arguable the GOP suffers more monetarily but I suspect the human suffering is greater for Nancy's constituency. Voters are not dump they can see that either side is positioned to end this quickly. Trump's theory is the public wanting their housing subsidies, snap payments, will eventually tell Pelosi just give him the damn money and build the darn wall. Nancy is betting Trumps public will say just give up, and keep the airports open.
We will see who is right; but I am not ignorant of civics or recent American political history dear A/C, although you appear to be.
Well if you have insider info than you'd be pretty safe buying with margin. So you could leverage your brokers money to an extent. Even E-Trade will let you buy on margin. However you have to have a sizeable set of funds or securities holding in the account before you will be extended to much credit.
That said even starting with only 5 or 10K I would think you could with solid insider data on lots of companies blow that up to a good chunk of changes by the end of earnings season.
#metoo is a hashtag used by sexual assault victims.
No, #metoo WAS a hashtag used by sexual assault victims by the time this happen it had become a hash tag used by whiners and outright frauds.
Look at the person doing the complaining on twitter she outright stated, this incident amounted to sexual assault. It SHE who is making light of tragic things that have happened to real victims, so that she can be popular on twitter. She is the one doing real harm to the cause and you are too by defending her! Yes someone made very stupid joke in very poor taste about a serious matter. Hey I guess we'd better string anyone who has ever played cards against humanity and especially its creators up right away right? Oh no because they are 'woke' or whatever.
Bad taste though it might be it really is harmless fun. By acting like its even in the same universe of concern of what is actually "sexual assault" that is where the real trivialization is occurring. You should be assumed of yourself.
They have been playing that game since Regan was in office. The shutdown is the only leverage the President has. If he signs appropriations bill he has no way to pressure Congress to make additional funds available for the wall and he knows it.
I know Nancy Pelosi knows it; and I bet you know it and are really just posturing.
^^THIS^^ its the fundamental problem with the 'you are a collaborator' in the labor vs capital argument. If *I* don't do it management will find someone who will (and probably with little difficulty). There is not resisting this from the front lines anyway.
There really is no resisting this from the political lines either. One way or another is going to happen because even if we outlawed certain types of automation or chose to forbid certain industries from automating, some other nation would choose not to do so and our industry would simply get wiped out.
There is no choosing people over productivity. If you don't chose productivity you get no products and the people suffer anyway. We must find solutions that allow people to retain their value by moving into new roles.
You say these things now but your tune might change mighty fast in the event of regional weather disaster or some kind of blight that causes a large number of crops to fail. These things have happened in the past. Producing an over abundance of food means that we don't starve when this happens. You are correct the policy to not maximize economic efficiency because that is not what its about. Its about insurance.
It absolutely is about preventing hunger. It is also becoming a political foot ball, where one site wants to try and profit by it beyond the insurance justification and certain other players want to rather disingenuously claim that the "red states" are actually dipping their hands into the federal till more than the coasts. Which might be true in the strictest technical sense but as previously stated is about the insurance of food security. While the coast might send more net dollars to dear old Uncle Sam you have to consider there is some distortion in value. I can assure nobody will give a crap about anything Hollywood produces if they don't have food on their tables. The value of all the intellectually property out west and most of the accounting ledger lines in the east won't be worth much to anyone if they can't procure a meal because their isnt one to buy.
(Yes I realize CA produces a lot of food - really not the point)
Basically LE took what was already a problematic and dubious trust system and cranked the problems up to 11. Analogy: Buying stuff from some guy on the street vs buying stuff from someone who is legally incorporated. Of course anyone can incorporate it does take much effort or prove much - but it takes some effort and means you at least have an address on file. Its a weak check but its 'something'. LE took that 'something' out of the signed SSL cert process.
I stand by my comments that LE does nothing useful. In fact it probably is negative security because it replaces cases where people would have used a self signed cert and verified the thumbprint over another channel. So it has if anything reduced the degree of authentication occurring. As far as just preventing eavesdropping when you don't know or trust the remote party anyway - their certs offer exactly nothing over a self signed one. Basically they just get around the "scare screens" when 99% of the sites using LE certs are really the ones you should be afraid of!
Wrong. LetsEncrypt removed any (although it was already limited) trust you could have in a third party CA. Before LE most CAs made a t least a little effort to not provide or to revoke certs for obvious phishing domains when the complaints rolled in.
Nothing LE does is needed for an encrypted web. We could all be using self signed certs + pinning and it would provide EXACTLY as much assurance as LE certs provide. The problem was the browser vendors could not do anything smarter with their stupid "scare screens"
Except that I am not going to hijack slashdot.org I am going to attempt to con you into going to slashdit.org instead. Which I will proxy to slashdot.org's login page so you don't think anything is wrong. You will most likely go ahead and authenticate (and I'll sniff the cookies along the way). I know you want give the URL a second look either because thanks to Google nobody displays address bars anymore. So if you click my initial link I totally own you.
Oh and mysite will have TLS and valid certificate too because LetsEncrypt is completely irresponsible and will robo sign anything domain you control even if its a totally obvious look-a-like phishing domain.
Slashdot Mirror
GIGO - means nothing more and nothing less than that you can never expect valid output (with the possible exception variations on "ERROR Invalid entry" ) unless you have valid inputs.
In the past on single user system or even on more restrictive shared systems there were lots of places where it was "acceptable" to just apply whatever algorithm your program does to the input and produce the outputs.. Were expected a an integer and someone sends the string 'A' well guess what that is still the bytes 65,00,?,? and that is still going to be 10905????? something as an integer. So you can still do math on that... The results are meaningless but so what..
On connected shared systems that might be a problem if it messes up others data, where as before you were only the victim of your own carelessness. To that end YES if you are implementing an program that is network connected you DO have some additional responsibility to perhaps not behave unpredictably even with invalid inputs or invalid combinations of inputs. You need to send that Error or do nothing as appropriate.
So the GP isn't fully wrong here.
Yes but there is no rule that says you have to use cheap ass earbuds. I take a lot of flights and I don't mind dragging along my expensive ass noise canceling super oral head set..
I want to place some emphasis here that I am not recording in public. I am recording as directed to do so within the confines of a private building at a private business in specific places within said building that are designated secure areas. Employees who work in these areas have agreed to follow a number of rules and agreed to various conditions such as "you may be recorded at anytime while on the floor" as a condition of employment there.
My point was simply that the objection people had to Google Glass, 6 years ago is largely moot. There is absolutely no social prohibition now on caring a smart phone and using it just about everywhere in public. If one is not a total putz its easily possible to record most things discretely using that device. The fear people had that glass users were recording them, is really silly unless you have similar reactions everytime an smart phone emerges from a purse or pocket.
yet I can walk around with my smart phone recording away, either up near my face like i am reading something on it; or just in hand down near my hip recording both what is in front of me and behind me with NO INDICATION at all. I use this all the time when I do walks around building for security audits. If you have something that looks camera like suddenly everyone is locking their desktops; ensuring their privacy screens are over their monitors like they are supposed to be; putting their badges back in their pockets rather than leaving them out on their desks etc... On a little discretion with the smart phone OOTH and you can bust people left and right...
Its almost like people don't really EVERYONE is walking around with good quality video cameras all the time now, and the ability to record for hours...
Most of the comments here are really missing the point. The moral of the story is If it needs external services to function YOU DON'T OWN IT. You can never OWN it.
Even if its OSS you might not be able to own it. At least there you'd have shot anyway at being able to implement some kind of patch to get whatever data it needs from some other source, or be able to obtain enough information to implement your own replacement service and or change where it points replace whatever certificate it requires etc.
Still we need some consume protections that require disclosing of external service dependencies and/or some rules requiring companies to support/maintain the services their products depend on for some minimum period of time as long as they are going concern.
One possibility is increasing density. PV installations take up a lot of space. Commercial operators don't want to do things like put them up high and build things under them because it increases and complicates maintenance. Residential operators probably don't keep them at optimal efficiency because they fail to get on the roof and clean them etc.
If a cheap system was designed that allowed collecting the light over a smaller area and then delivering it to PV cells that could for instance be stacked...There might be some gains to be had. You could gather light more efficiently ( in terms of sq ft ) with a round lenses and project it on to flat cells. Without really knowing anything, I'd be skeptical of the cost/payback but its possible there is something to this along these lines.
Well right, that is why I said *truly* because what those of us on slashdot define as end to end; that the sender and named recipients of the message possess the keys required to decipher the content and nobody else does and what Zuck mees could be different.
However as others point out we are talking about mobile apps here. These are closed source things are platforms where its difficult to even inspect the filesystem on your own device. The apps themselves are obfuscated and protected from decompile and inspection (android) and cipgered themselves (IOS). The only way to really find out what they are doing is to instrument them which means running them on a device you have rooted (using super sketch software from dubious providence in almost all cases).
So FB can easily push a change that hand them all the keys or gives them a backdoor at anytime. Hell they might not even need to change the binary. Just allow the web view these apps use to load some JS that sends the messages to an additional recipient. They idea you are going to have any real protection againt FB spying on you using these things or anyone else doing it at least with FB's cooperation is silly for the start.
If its truly "end-to-end" than no - facebook, the telco others can't see it. As far as government goes they really are mostly satisfied with the fact they can see that Jim chatted with Kathy, how often and when.
That is probably "good enough" for facebook's social graph and combined with other data harvesting efforts ad targeting.
What it seems incompatible with is their stated desire to do anything about what they believe is "fake news" or online harassment.
The other angle I don't get is for all the negative press Zuck and facebook are getting If I were him I'd be concerned, about regulators getting heavy handed. I'd be concerned certain demographics might abandon a platform etc. I would want to keep the properties separate for those reasons. If I can't keep the kiddies on fb, I can at least keep them on watsapp, etc..
I agree with all that. But my problem at this point is that we HAVE a problem. This platforms constitute and emergency for our society. I think a lot people don't realize how serious a problem this actually is right now.
Its a frog in the pot, type situation. We have got used to this stuff over time. If you plucked someone out of 2008 and showed them the events of 2016-19 so far they'd be be shocked at how web 2.0 is used and its impacts on our society and individuals. Yet by 2k8 web 2.0 was pretty well definable.
I think the courts have had a decade to play with this and it has gone to trial in a number of lower courts, who have applied various existing laws. The legislative branch isn't going to solve the problem, they have had a decade to act. The SCOTUS has a cases to review but they are never going to get some petridish examples of decisions and outcomes because these are global scoped companies.
This is probably a key question the court really should
1) take up
2) issue an expansive ruling on
We really need to nail down just exactly when you are a publish responsible for the content editorial or otherwise in your publication and when you are a platform
The present body of the law is IMHO a bit ambiguous. We have a number of giant concerns that grew up by being platforms but increasingly adopt behaviors that are more and more publication like while still claiming their protection as platforms. They then hide behind algorithms that at one point might have been neutral but now are clearly tinkered with actively to obtain outcomes more palatable to their leadership; for good or ill.
YELP here is a good example their model is basically pay us and we make sure more favorable reviews about you business get more eyeballs. Oh sure you can use the legal system to get out right defamatory content removed but in lots of cases just policing the various platforms for that is a chore; and the safe harbors these sites enjoy are simply to expansive in that even if you can get courts to make them stop defaming you, there is little ability to recoup any damages.
The near total lack of accountability of these entities is largely responsible for the absolutely corrosive political and social atmosphere that is rapidly taking over. There needs to be limits put in place on what these guys can do in terms of choosing what content to promote, how often they can disseminate it, and to what degree they pass on the civil responsibility for it thru to authors. I understand the Courts reluctance to rule on these cases using existing laws. Judgements shoehorning YELP, facebook, Twitter, Google, et al onto law body developed for news papers, television/radio broadcasters, telephone operators and the like is far from ideal. The trouble is the legislative organs of our government wont do a damn thing about this because they think the mobs mentality these guys create is useful to them getting reelected; and that goes for both sides of the isle.
The big fish get to issue some token apology and are offered a do-over when they are on the wrong end of things, or they can parlay the situation into one of - there is no such thing as bad publicity. That works if you are Donald Trump, Kevin Hart, or Elizabeth Warren, it does not work so well if you are Joe/Jane Sixpack
"If you like your feature you can keep it"
I think in the consumer software space there is very real conflict between security updates and functional requirements.
Uses chose software because it did something they wanted to do. The home computer is not purely entertainment for a lot people. Many of them actually do care that they can create the weekly mailer, exchange very documents with people in their only hobby group - which could range from pictures to CAD drawings and 3d printing instructions.
The trouble is these days installing that update could do any number of things. Maybe a feature you used is out right dropped or is only available in the paid "pro" version now; requires an active internet connection when it did not before etc etc. Maybe is just works and looks different and learning some new work flow or rebuilding all your scripts and macros just isn't something you want to do this month. If the changes don't work for you to bad; no security fixes then. Also if you only have one system and don't know other people doing exactly what you are doing often its a mystery as to what version next will bring. Again if its a process that is critical to you, can your risk updating?
At least before critical system components like Windows itself could be pretty well depended on not push major user visible changes or changes likely to break other applications and API functions in updates. Increasingly this too is changing and its no surprise people respond by not updating.
What does MS do in response make it more and more difficult to turn off auto updates; yes I suppose it keeps people on the update train a little longer but it does nothing to build confidence. Increasingly it drives the to other platforms which they will then not install updates on with our without justification.
Don't forget to that technical issues aside in a lot cases people are trading one possible threat, local law enforcement and their own ISP where they have some contractual, statutory, and constitutional/lawful recourse against if "something" was done to them for some actor(s) in a foreign country where:
1) you may or may not be granted legal rights and protections
2) exposes you to foreign surveillance powers by own own government since your traffic is no longer domestic
3) generally face a more costly and difficult process for accessing any legal remedy
Basically the VPN guys can pretty much abuse you in any way they like. Sure you can quit using their VPN more easily than you can quit your ISP. You have the lever so if they start spamming your with ads and stuff you have control there. If they are more subtle than that and more nefarious and do something to you that isn't obvious though, chances are good there is NOTHING at all you can do about it; and they know that! Consider the incentives and disincentives. While I am not making a "if you have nothing to hide argument here" I am going to suggest that if whatever your reasons for wanting additional privacy fall short of criminal you might just be better off trusting your ISP and simply practicing good hygiene. IE - use the incognito mode in your browser as appropriate, patch your system, if you have to use 'sketchy sites' use a VM and revert the snapshot when you are done, be smart/think before your click.
Not to mention 10,000 years isn't really even the metric to be using. We have been watching the skies now with advanced instruments longer than 4 light years. If there was alien activity on the scale required to launch a giant probe like this in one of nearest neighboring systems you also have to factor in the probability that we will have failed to observer any other indications of advanced life there, through radiation etc.
Either we are talking about some pretty stealthy aliens, which raises the question how come the prove isn't stealth too, or if it is an alien probe it came from some place much further away.
Assuming it came from further away, it would have to be (I suspect) an order of magnitude older still; which makes it even less likely some alien culture sent it.
As a practical matter there may be limits to the speed we want to interact with the world around us. Just think of Twitter without the fraction of second delay between composing a message and tabbing over to the post button... Sometime a little friction is a good thing
Exactly Musk (and he is smart enough to know better) is conflating intelligence with access to information. They two are not the same. While its true the most intelligent person in the world still can't make good decisions without access to timely, and correct information; it does not work the other way round.
You can't give just anyone access to information and suddenly expect them to be smart. Stupid is as Stupid does. There are lot of smart phone running around this country and all I have to do is flip on the news for 5min to confirm its NOT making people wiser, if anything they are just letting people do more stupid faster.
pretty well actually. Most of what went into internal combustion engines had a lot in common with steam engines in terms of manufacture. steam engines by that point had reached a pretty high level of development.
Now materials sciences have advanced a lot and its possible to build much more efficient and much longer lived engines today but even the early models could get your buggy down the road or push your dingy across the cove. They offered pretty clear and obvious advantage over what they were replacing, a horse or men at oars; they could not requiring large boilers and reservoirs be deployed were steam could not be.
AI by contrast stacks up pretty poorly against the what its replacing in most cases "human intelligence." Very specialized "AIs" working in vary narrow domains perform well and best us because of speed and the ability to pull facts from large information stores directly but as far as a general intelligence goes nothing is anywhere near us meat bags, even child meat bags.
Yes he can, but those bills are not "must pass" if he vetos those bills basically nothing happens. In other words they don't offer an leverage. Supposes the president veto's some farm bill or some trade agreement: Do think Democrats are going to trade the political capital they have amassed grand standing over the wall to get that done? -No. A small group of people who needed that legislation will be abandon to suffer by both sides calculating they are not a large enough number of votes to move the needles next election cycle.
On the other hand the shutdown effects a lot of people in a lot of ways. Voters WILL want a budget enacted. Whose base its "hurts" more is a good question. Arguable the GOP suffers more monetarily but I suspect the human suffering is greater for Nancy's constituency. Voters are not dump they can see that either side is positioned to end this quickly. Trump's theory is the public wanting their housing subsidies, snap payments, will eventually tell Pelosi just give him the damn money and build the darn wall. Nancy is betting Trumps public will say just give up, and keep the airports open.
We will see who is right; but I am not ignorant of civics or recent American political history dear A/C, although you appear to be.
Well if you have insider info than you'd be pretty safe buying with margin. So you could leverage your brokers money to an extent. Even E-Trade will let you buy on margin. However you have to have a sizeable set of funds or securities holding in the account before you will be extended to much credit.
That said even starting with only 5 or 10K I would think you could with solid insider data on lots of companies blow that up to a good chunk of changes by the end of earnings season.
#metoo is a hashtag used by sexual assault victims.
No, #metoo WAS a hashtag used by sexual assault victims by the time this happen it had become a hash tag used by whiners and outright frauds.
Look at the person doing the complaining on twitter she outright stated, this incident amounted to sexual assault. It SHE who is making light of tragic things that have happened to real victims, so that she can be popular on twitter. She is the one doing real harm to the cause and you are too by defending her! Yes someone made very stupid joke in very poor taste about a serious matter. Hey I guess we'd better string anyone who has ever played cards against humanity and especially its creators up right away right? Oh no because they are 'woke' or whatever.
Bad taste though it might be it really is harmless fun. By acting like its even in the same universe of concern of what is actually "sexual assault" that is where the real trivialization is occurring. You should be assumed of yourself.
They have been playing that game since Regan was in office. The shutdown is the only leverage the President has. If he signs appropriations bill he has no way to pressure Congress to make additional funds available for the wall and he knows it.
I know Nancy Pelosi knows it; and I bet you know it and are really just posturing.
^^THIS^^ its the fundamental problem with the 'you are a collaborator' in the labor vs capital argument. If *I* don't do it management will find someone who will (and probably with little difficulty). There is not resisting this from the front lines anyway.
There really is no resisting this from the political lines either. One way or another is going to happen because even if we outlawed certain types of automation or chose to forbid certain industries from automating, some other nation would choose not to do so and our industry would simply get wiped out.
There is no choosing people over productivity. If you don't chose productivity you get no products and the people suffer anyway. We must find solutions that allow people to retain their value by moving into new roles.
You say these things now but your tune might change mighty fast in the event of regional weather disaster or some kind of blight that causes a large number of crops to fail. These things have happened in the past. Producing an over abundance of food means that we don't starve when this happens. You are correct the policy to not maximize economic efficiency because that is not what its about. Its about insurance.
It absolutely is about preventing hunger. It is also becoming a political foot ball, where one site wants to try and profit by it beyond the insurance justification and certain other players want to rather disingenuously claim that the "red states" are actually dipping their hands into the federal till more than the coasts. Which might be true in the strictest technical sense but as previously stated is about the insurance of food security. While the coast might send more net dollars to dear old Uncle Sam you have to consider there is some distortion in value. I can assure nobody will give a crap about anything Hollywood produces if they don't have food on their tables. The value of all the intellectually property out west and most of the accounting ledger lines in the east won't be worth much to anyone if they can't procure a meal because their isnt one to buy.
(Yes I realize CA produces a lot of food - really not the point)
The CA's were never dependable the for profit CAs never made the problem this bad:
https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
Basically LE took what was already a problematic and dubious trust system and cranked the problems up to 11. Analogy: Buying stuff from some guy on the street vs buying stuff from someone who is legally incorporated. Of course anyone can incorporate it does take much effort or prove much - but it takes some effort and means you at least have an address on file. Its a weak check but its 'something'. LE took that 'something' out of the signed SSL cert process.
I stand by my comments that LE does nothing useful. In fact it probably is negative security because it replaces cases where people would have used a self signed cert and verified the thumbprint over another channel. So it has if anything reduced the degree of authentication occurring. As far as just preventing eavesdropping when you don't know or trust the remote party anyway - their certs offer exactly nothing over a self signed one. Basically they just get around the "scare screens" when 99% of the sites using LE certs are really the ones you should be afraid of!
Wrong. LetsEncrypt removed any (although it was already limited) trust you could have in a third party CA. Before LE most CAs made a t least a little effort to not provide or to revoke certs for obvious phishing domains when the complaints rolled in.
Nothing LE does is needed for an encrypted web. We could all be using self signed certs + pinning and it would provide EXACTLY as much assurance as LE certs provide. The problem was the browser vendors could not do anything smarter with their stupid "scare screens"
Except that I am not going to hijack slashdot.org I am going to attempt to con you into going to slashdit.org instead. Which I will proxy to slashdot.org's login page so you don't think anything is wrong. You will most likely go ahead and authenticate (and I'll sniff the cookies along the way). I know you want give the URL a second look either because thanks to Google nobody displays address bars anymore. So if you click my initial link I totally own you.
Oh and mysite will have TLS and valid certificate too because LetsEncrypt is completely irresponsible and will robo sign anything domain you control even if its a totally obvious look-a-like phishing domain.