A small, convenient electric car for a family is something you can happily recharge overnight. A semi. to drive for a day on electricity alone hauling a trailer with steel, and recharge overnight? Not gonna happen in the next 5-8 years at least, and to replace the existing fleets allow two more decades if you look optimistically.
Gas stations may change the profile, but trucks will need oil for a long time yet.
- Starting with Win7, during beta the install and boot-up process were ridiculously long. Like, 10 minutes to boot up on a fast hardware, over an hour to install. Microsoft decided to get around that problem by hijacking the hibernate function and shipping a system as image to be booted up and then somewhat customized to needs. This keeps boot-up time short because instead of loading and initializing each program and service separately, they just load up an image of a 90% complete running system and just apply finishing touches / customizations.
- when you apply "deeper" updates, the boot-up image needs to be rebuilt.
The president would be powerless if the laws were precise. But the laws are written as a broad compromise between the parties, and as result leave extreme amounts of wiggle room.
Law says: it's not permissible for illegal immigrants to remain inside US.
President reacts: Let's give them all citizenship then! They won't be illegal immigrants then!
That heavily depends on what the machines are. Small embedded is notoriously incapable of this due to inherent limitations. Big embedded - technically capable, but if you spend a month programming this stuff, you quickly find out how burdensome this gets, so you use insecure for development. Nowadays it's a rare case that the product actually enters the stage of "complete" as opposed to "good enough for production" so a lot of the debug stuff stays in, to be removed in the distant "when it's finished" which never comes.
If I sell you a car privately and leave my phone in it, the phone doesn't become yours, and I could still potentially access it abd track it, and ask for its return.
And $200 extra, a fee for removing said phone from the car? Refusing to just take your phone, and using it to disable my car unless I pay you to remove that phone?
Ownership of the tracking device is arguable, but moot, because whether it was the car owner's property, accessed illegally with malicious intent, or whether it was the dealership's property (accessed legally) then subsequently used to access the owner's property (the car) illegally, the result is the same.
Just like whether I break into your home LAN and wipe your PC through cracking the password on your wifi router, or I leave my own wifi router plugged into your home LAN and use it to hack it, ownership of the router is moot.
Well, there's still the matter of what can be done through that Telnet.
Devices that can't support SSH sure as hell won't support a fully-featured shell. Most likely it will be a pseudo-shell that exposes a couple commands of diagnostics and maybe (not necessarily) control. If it's just diagnostics, no problem. If it's control, that may be a bit of a bother. It certainly won't be able to run a botnet, send spam or create DDOS.
My company produces devices that have Telnet port open. But since we're deploying them, we make sure the routers don't expose the port - and these routers are in restricted APN subnet with no simple access from outside anyway. Reason: devices are too busy doing their work; ssh is present but so slow that if the network connection is poor, it's unusable. In that case you ssh into the router, then telnet to the device.
"99% of the time, if your microcontroller can handle telnet, it can handle ssh. "
Bullshit.
Once you have the TCP stack, getting a Telnet access is a program of two dozen lines.
SSH, even if you can miraculously squeeze it into RAM, will take an hour to process the initial crypto handshake - your CPU is most usually 1MHz, and already heavily loaded by primary job of the device.
Of course you can use a different microcontroller. Increasing the price by 30% and falling behind the competition and losing most of your sales. And you can not support TCP/IP. Which defeats the purpose of IoT device.
Reagan and Bush Sr. scaled the budget near 26bln. Clinton scaled it back down to about 21bln. G.W.Bush kept it at 22-23bln. Obama scaled it down to below 20bln, with 2013 seeing it at about 18bln, lowest since Kennedy. Trump's first year has it higher than Obama's average.
Absolutely agreed. But if a company attempts to meet artificial quota of numbers of employees of given gender or skin color. then this biases the metric. Say, the company wants to employ top 10% out of 100 candidates, where there are 90 men and 10 women; same distribution of skill. Normally the company would hire 9 men and 1 woman, on the average. But now company parity policy requires equal gender ratios when hiring. Where does that leave skill level of least skilled woman hired vs the best of the men that were rejected?
Cue Google sifting through the guy's company email just to find out who were the dissenters who sent him letters of support but said they were afraid to speak out loud.
I can see that while people didn't love Trump's policy, they definitely preferred his open "in your face" approach to politics. Yes, he's a part of the establishment and he's quite open about that.
Meanwhile, Clinton was just slimy. She hid behind the face of "defender of minorities", all the while playing for the establishment behind the scenes. People hate being lied to like that. They prefer an open, frank asshole than a smooth slimeball.
It wasn't so much of a problem that she was pro-PC. It's how she used it to hide her little swamp. And the crowds of raging or crying idiots who panicked that "Trump will rape us all, and Hillary DESERVED to win!" - people so blinded by her little pro-PC lies that they completely missed the amounts of dirt she was hiding behind them - that was a pitiful sight.
Trump is pretty transparent. You may hate what he's doing. He's doing a lot of stuff people (including me) think shortsighted and unfair and puzzling, and I don't really see where he's going with what he's doing, because I don't think it's all going anywhere towards "MAGA". But at least we *see* what he's doing. We can be puzzled, disappointed, worried, but at least for now, we're not feeling *cheated*. He's actually less bad than I thought he would be.
Too bad people can agree that genetics can guide physical traits, but somehow mental predispositions are completely exempt and everyone is born with absolutely identical brain and is equally good at every mental task as anyone else.
The fact that the original "bell curve" research contained errors doesn't prove the thesis was false. It only meant the results weren't conclusive and that the research methods should have been improved. Unfortunately, any research that fails to flawlessly prove an unpopular thesis is immediately marked as taboo and any further improvements and corrections of the errors to obtain conclusive results are met with so much opposition no scientist dares to touch it again.
Currently, the state of science *suggests* the bell curve theory is at least partially correct. But since nobody dares to conduct conclusive research (lest it proves the theory some more but they make another mistake, and are ostracized forever) all that's done is finding some more flaws in the original research in attempt to reduce its credibility a little bit more.
Normal scientific process:
Thesis -> plan of experiment -> gathering experimental data -> analyzing data -> conclusions -> discussion of error -> adjustment of thesis and plan of experiment -> back to gathering experimental data; endless loop until no more flaws can be found.
Scientific process on controversial issues:
Thesis -> plan of experiment -> gathering experimental data -> analyzing data -> conclusions -> shitstorm about errors -> shaming and punishment of scientists -> mothballing the research forever.
Company policy is way down the list of laws, far below the Human Rights bill, Constitution, Federal Law, State Law, etc. It doesn't precede them, and if they say certain activities can't be forbidden, the company policy can't delegalize them.
In particular, criticism of the company policy within the company is a legal right of the employee, and that's the core of the letter in question. The defense lawyer would need to wiggle quite hard to single out statements that violated the company policy and simultaneously weren't expressly permitted by the law.
Doesn't mean there aren't any. But the case of the defense is way more difficult, and a slip may result instead in the court invalidating large parts of the company policy and issuing severe fines for having a policy that violates the law.
How fucking corrupt (or clueless) must one have been to have cast a vote for Hillary Clinton?
We had a similar situation in Poland recently. A party of ass clowns was voted in, in place of one of very competent *thieves* that kept robbing the country blind with impunity over previous 8 years. And while the ass clowns aren't a good government, they certainly cause far less harm than the thieves did.
You know, that's argument ad hominem. It really doesn't matter *who* makes the argument; what matters is the merit of the argument. The argument is that security through obscurity isn't any good. It's an argument every security expert will agree with. In this case it's been already proven to be a vulnerability, in case of Intel. There's no valid defense AMD can use to defend their approach....so, for lack of valid defenses, let's use ad hominem...
Yeah, I wonder what if someone sent mr. Prime Minister an encrypted message - printed on paper, by snail mail. With an unencrypted hint that the contents are an info about upcoming terrorist attack, or his assassination attempt or such. And suggest he makes the post office deal with decrypting the message for him.
Slashdot Mirror
Film is as niche as vinyl records or lamp amplifiers. Meaning not really all that niche.
When are we going to see electric semi-trucks?
A small, convenient electric car for a family is something you can happily recharge overnight. A semi. to drive for a day on electricity alone hauling a trailer with steel, and recharge overnight? Not gonna happen in the next 5-8 years at least, and to replace the existing fleets allow two more decades if you look optimistically.
Gas stations may change the profile, but trucks will need oil for a long time yet.
Just a guess:
- Starting with Win7, during beta the install and boot-up process were ridiculously long. Like, 10 minutes to boot up on a fast hardware, over an hour to install. Microsoft decided to get around that problem by hijacking the hibernate function and shipping a system as image to be booted up and then somewhat customized to needs. This keeps boot-up time short because instead of loading and initializing each program and service separately, they just load up an image of a 90% complete running system and just apply finishing touches / customizations.
- when you apply "deeper" updates, the boot-up image needs to be rebuilt.
Nah. Their wings are delicious though.
The president would be powerless if the laws were precise. But the laws are written as a broad compromise between the parties, and as result leave extreme amounts of wiggle room.
Law says: it's not permissible for illegal immigrants to remain inside US.
President reacts: Let's give them all citizenship then! They won't be illegal immigrants then!
That heavily depends on what the machines are. Small embedded is notoriously incapable of this due to inherent limitations. Big embedded - technically capable, but if you spend a month programming this stuff, you quickly find out how burdensome this gets, so you use insecure for development. Nowadays it's a rare case that the product actually enters the stage of "complete" as opposed to "good enough for production" so a lot of the debug stuff stays in, to be removed in the distant "when it's finished" which never comes.
And $200 extra, a fee for removing said phone from the car? Refusing to just take your phone, and using it to disable my car unless I pay you to remove that phone?
Ownership of the tracking device is arguable, but moot, because whether it was the car owner's property, accessed illegally with malicious intent, or whether it was the dealership's property (accessed legally) then subsequently used to access the owner's property (the car) illegally, the result is the same.
Just like whether I break into your home LAN and wipe your PC through cracking the password on your wifi router, or I leave my own wifi router plugged into your home LAN and use it to hack it, ownership of the router is moot.
Also, accessing a device which is not your property (anymore) remotely, and using it with malicious intent. A.K.A. hacking.
Connected with extortion (like ransomware, "pay us, and we withdraw our actions.").
Well, there's still the matter of what can be done through that Telnet.
Devices that can't support SSH sure as hell won't support a fully-featured shell. Most likely it will be a pseudo-shell that exposes a couple commands of diagnostics and maybe (not necessarily) control. If it's just diagnostics, no problem. If it's control, that may be a bit of a bother. It certainly won't be able to run a botnet, send spam or create DDOS.
My company produces devices that have Telnet port open. But since we're deploying them, we make sure the routers don't expose the port - and these routers are in restricted APN subnet with no simple access from outside anyway. Reason: devices are too busy doing their work; ssh is present but so slow that if the network connection is poor, it's unusable. In that case you ssh into the router, then telnet to the device.
"99% of the time, if your microcontroller can handle telnet, it can handle ssh. "
Bullshit.
Once you have the TCP stack, getting a Telnet access is a program of two dozen lines.
SSH, even if you can miraculously squeeze it into RAM, will take an hour to process the initial crypto handshake - your CPU is most usually 1MHz, and already heavily loaded by primary job of the device.
Of course you can use a different microcontroller. Increasing the price by 30% and falling behind the competition and losing most of your sales. And you can not support TCP/IP. Which defeats the purpose of IoT device.
Try to create an IoT lightbulb with 8-bit microcontroller with 16KB RAM that runs SSH server.
Squeezing a TCP stack into these things is a challenge.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
Reagan and Bush Sr. scaled the budget near 26bln. Clinton scaled it back down to about 21bln. G.W.Bush kept it at 22-23bln. Obama scaled it down to below 20bln, with 2013 seeing it at about 18bln, lowest since Kennedy. Trump's first year has it higher than Obama's average.
So, you mean unemployment problem would become completely nonexistent?
Sometimes, when the correct answer is "Maybe", but the crowd is shouting "Yes, Yes, Yes!" the only way to get it straightened out is a damn loud "NO!"
Absolutely agreed. But if a company attempts to meet artificial quota of numbers of employees of given gender or skin color. then this biases the metric. Say, the company wants to employ top 10% out of 100 candidates, where there are 90 men and 10 women; same distribution of skill. Normally the company would hire 9 men and 1 woman, on the average. But now company parity policy requires equal gender ratios when hiring. Where does that leave skill level of least skilled woman hired vs the best of the men that were rejected?
You find this offensive?
I'm finding this opinionated. Quite possibly factually incorrect. But I totally fail to find any offensive content.
Cue Google sifting through the guy's company email just to find out who were the dissenters who sent him letters of support but said they were afraid to speak out loud.
I can see that while people didn't love Trump's policy, they definitely preferred his open "in your face" approach to politics. Yes, he's a part of the establishment and he's quite open about that.
Meanwhile, Clinton was just slimy. She hid behind the face of "defender of minorities", all the while playing for the establishment behind the scenes. People hate being lied to like that. They prefer an open, frank asshole than a smooth slimeball.
It wasn't so much of a problem that she was pro-PC. It's how she used it to hide her little swamp. And the crowds of raging or crying idiots who panicked that "Trump will rape us all, and Hillary DESERVED to win!" - people so blinded by her little pro-PC lies that they completely missed the amounts of dirt she was hiding behind them - that was a pitiful sight.
Trump is pretty transparent. You may hate what he's doing. He's doing a lot of stuff people (including me) think shortsighted and unfair and puzzling, and I don't really see where he's going with what he's doing, because I don't think it's all going anywhere towards "MAGA". But at least we *see* what he's doing. We can be puzzled, disappointed, worried, but at least for now, we're not feeling *cheated*. He's actually less bad than I thought he would be.
Meanwhile, Democrats are slimier than ever.
Too bad people can agree that genetics can guide physical traits, but somehow mental predispositions are completely exempt and everyone is born with absolutely identical brain and is equally good at every mental task as anyone else.
The fact that the original "bell curve" research contained errors doesn't prove the thesis was false. It only meant the results weren't conclusive and that the research methods should have been improved. Unfortunately, any research that fails to flawlessly prove an unpopular thesis is immediately marked as taboo and any further improvements and corrections of the errors to obtain conclusive results are met with so much opposition no scientist dares to touch it again.
Currently, the state of science *suggests* the bell curve theory is at least partially correct. But since nobody dares to conduct conclusive research (lest it proves the theory some more but they make another mistake, and are ostracized forever) all that's done is finding some more flaws in the original research in attempt to reduce its credibility a little bit more.
Normal scientific process:
Thesis -> plan of experiment -> gathering experimental data -> analyzing data -> conclusions -> discussion of error -> adjustment of thesis and plan of experiment -> back to gathering experimental data; endless loop until no more flaws can be found.
Scientific process on controversial issues:
Thesis -> plan of experiment -> gathering experimental data -> analyzing data -> conclusions -> shitstorm about errors -> shaming and punishment of scientists -> mothballing the research forever.
Company policy is way down the list of laws, far below the Human Rights bill, Constitution, Federal Law, State Law, etc. It doesn't precede them, and if they say certain activities can't be forbidden, the company policy can't delegalize them.
In particular, criticism of the company policy within the company is a legal right of the employee, and that's the core of the letter in question. The defense lawyer would need to wiggle quite hard to single out statements that violated the company policy and simultaneously weren't expressly permitted by the law.
Doesn't mean there aren't any. But the case of the defense is way more difficult, and a slip may result instead in the court invalidating large parts of the company policy and issuing severe fines for having a policy that violates the law.
I wonder how much of "correlation is not causation" is at play here -
do they get the damage through playing, or do people with that specific sort of brain damage are especially apt at Football?
How fucking corrupt (or clueless) must one have been to have cast a vote for Hillary Clinton?
We had a similar situation in Poland recently. A party of ass clowns was voted in, in place of one of very competent *thieves* that kept robbing the country blind with impunity over previous 8 years. And while the ass clowns aren't a good government, they certainly cause far less harm than the thieves did.
Well, I'm going to express my vote through my wallet. I'm not a fringe group - I'm a potential customer. A potential customer they have lost.
You know, that's argument ad hominem. It really doesn't matter *who* makes the argument; what matters is the merit of the argument. The argument is that security through obscurity isn't any good. It's an argument every security expert will agree with. In this case it's been already proven to be a vulnerability, in case of Intel. There's no valid defense AMD can use to defend their approach. ...so, for lack of valid defenses, let's use ad hominem...
Yeah, I wonder what if someone sent mr. Prime Minister an encrypted message - printed on paper, by snail mail. With an unencrypted hint that the contents are an info about upcoming terrorist attack, or his assassination attempt or such. And suggest he makes the post office deal with decrypting the message for him.