Go do your own damn research. I'm not your servant. I just said "I don't want a data center in your town"
I did. But what you are saying is that you won't back up your opinion when challenged.
You haven't even seen a data center apparently.
Please read my other post. I specifically posted images of Apple's data center in North Carolina. 1) You can't really see it from the road. 2) It's located 4 miles outside the nearest town.
Please post what you describe as "data centers that look like shit". Also you do understand that most data centers are located away from town centers, right? With the space and power requirements, Apple and Google puts their data centers very specifically away from everything.
While true that there are not many permanent jobs in a datacenter, what do you mean by energy rates going up and "ugly" data center? At best the datacenter is a non-descript building just like any other building. With Apple specifically it says in the title that they were attracted by the abundant green energy nearby. Combined with Apple's zero footprint policies, it's unlikely that the locals might see their energy rates go down as Apple will sell back excess energy.
You can get anything you want in the PC market. You always could get all sorts of weird shit that would put any Apple options to shame. What Apple did was to heavily market this stuff and then pretend they were the one's that invented it (or the only ones that had it).
Today maybe. Back in 1998, you had your choice of mostly beige. I remember back then that Dell was unique in that it offered black. Certainly no bright colors.
Nope. Bank statements weren't lost. Bank statements sent to be destroyed don't have a receipt for being destroyed despite being on general nondescript tapes in a large collection of other tapes that were destroyed.
Again your assertion. The bank cannot confirm the tapes were destroyed.
Credit card numbers? What are you talking about? There's not enough credit card information on a bank statement to financially affect a customer. Maybe in some other countries stuff that is normally sent by unsecured mail has such stupid security practices, but not here. The biggest concerns even by the Australian media have pointed out to the fact that you could in theory match a transaction to a person. Nothing more.
Again your assertion. Do you have statements from the bank? Remember these statements go back 10 years and while it is not prudent to list the credit card numbers on a statement these days you cannot say that the bank didn't do that in the past especially with their own cards. On my statement it currently lists the last 4 digits of my CC number. I can assure you at one point, the bank listed the entire CC number as the account number.
You don't understand quite how benign the data on statements are do you. Here's a hint: They contain: Name, address, your account number, and a list of purchases. In Australia the only thing on that list that isn't routinely shared with anyone who asks is your list of purchases.
So let me see if I understand you correctly: First, you don't think that it's a problem that someone might get my account number, name, and address, as well as a history of purchases. I want to clarify that you understand that might have disclosed. Do you know what Identity Theft uses? That same information.
Second what kind of bank do you do business with that shares all your information? No bank I've ever done business with has disclosed my purchase history with another party.
Third any party that knows this information is one I've given the explicit information not strangers. For example my landlord knows where I live and how much I pay in rent. What you do seem to ignore is that as a stranger you don't know that information. Also my landlord doesn't know how much I paid in credit card bills or which bank issued my credit card. My landlord only knows the information I've provided.
Sign up for credit monitoring? What a strange concept. I get an automatic notification if something out of the ordinary happens such as the first time a new debit transaction occurs, not to mention that 2FA has been standard practice for banks for any withdrawals for any reason other than a swipe of a CHIP+PIN card or a pre-authorized transaction for the best part of 10 years.
I don't think you know what Credit Monitoring is. It's not a notification that a charge has been made. It's a notification that a new account has been created. Please read up on Identity Theft.
As someone who's life savings are affected by this breach... *yawn*.
Well if you don't want to think about the ramifications, that's your own fault.
Not merely more. Apple's contention is that Qualcomm is charging them twice called double dipping. There are two ways to license patents in chips: directly and indirectly. For example if you want to use ARM patents in a chip you can either negotiate with ARM for a license then approach a chip foundrey to make the chips (which many companies like Apple does) or you can buy chips from companies that have an ARM license (Samsung, TI, NVidia, etc). What Apple is claiming is that they bought chips from a company that made Qualcomm chips but that Qualcomm also wants license fees in addition to what they purchased.
The customer can't do anything about this. Largely they should be unaffected by it as well. Unless you're worried someone may find your receipt from "Illegal and Immoral things R Us" along with your name at the top the only other exposure is that this contributes 25 points towards a 100 point identity check. So not even enough information for identity theft.
And how did you draw that conclusion? Bank statements for a decade were lost. That's a lot of information on any particular person. Were other account numbers in those statements? For example if you paid your credit card bill then the CC number might be exposed or at a minimum the bank that issued the credit card. You've asserted a lot based on a lack of information.
So... the customer can do nothing. It's not confirmed that the data was mishandled. The regulator was informed and deemed it all okay. And all that really was identified is that a receipt for the destruction was missing.
Which is troubling. The data should have been destroyed. In the bank's best case scenario, they were destroyed but someone was lax in confirming it. In the bank's worse case scenario, the tapes were taken.
How would the customer (I have 4 accounts with this bank) benefit in knowing?
Maybe the customer would like to check if any accounts for possible breaches. Maybe the customer would need to sign up for credit monitoring to ensure that their accounts haven't been breached.
As Jefferson put it, a free government is one instituted with the consent of the people to protect their rights and interests.
Yes but that's the US government at best. The poster mentioned other governments like the Russians and the Chinese specifically. It's not practical to implement this with multiple governments who have different agendas.
I don't think that's a problem with asymmetric paired keys. The public key would be on the phone and is vulnerable to capture and reuse but that's the point of a public key.
The manufacturer is not forced to grant their request.
I don't know if that is true.
What's not to love? I have no issue with the government inspecting my property and even my very self -- as long as they are acting under the orders of the court. At some point, you have to trust your government.
The problem is that there is more than one government in the world. Right now what keeps companies like Apple from complying with foreign governments is the lack of the ability. That means never traveling to other countries. For example if you visit China, the government could arrest you and then would have possession of your phone which they could ask Apple or Samsung to unlock. It's not like China hasn't been involved with industrial espionage on a grand scale for decades. Right now if you visit China for work, one piece of advice is to leave your devices at home that may any sensitive company information.
In the article Ozzie proposes a slight modification to the golden key solutions previously proposed. Instead of a single master key that would unlock every single device or system, his system relies on the manufacturer or creator to create specific asymmetric paired keys. When law enforcement requires a device or account to be unlocked, the manufacturer can unlock with their private paired key. In the case of San Bernandino, Apple would unlock only that particular iPhone.
The problem with this is that it requires the creator or manufacturer to be the stewards of these keys for an indefinite amount of time. In the case of Apple, they have to maintain keys for as long as an iPhone could exist which could be decades. It is also going to be problematic for companies or organizations that no longer exist. When companies go bankrupt, one of the few remaining assets they could sell is their data.
It doesn't shift the problem of risk to the stewards. It is still possible that the keys could be stolen; it just means hackers do not have to steal a single key.
Practically how will this work with independent developers? Open source developers would never follow this system.
Because the method of collecting and the storage ends up different. Individual data collection implies tracking individuals, implies security issues that are greatly reduced in aggregate data. Learn the difference.
Bahahaha. You do understand that even the way MS collects data is capable of tracking individuals, right? What MS claims is that the data is anonymized so that individuals cannot be identified but that does not mean they cannnot be tracked. I work in data and it would fairly useless if individuals could not be tracked. Take for example, the diagnostic reports that we know MS is collecting data. Based on the hardware configuration MS would probably like to know if certain hardware like a GPU has issues with a particular crash. Windows will send hardware configuration along with the diagnostic report. That hardware information can be used to track someone. MS can certainly use the hardware configuration to assign an ID to the computer.
Thanks for highlighting the relevant bits. You should scroll through and re-read everything we've said about BSODs so far and why their complaints are being taken seriously.
I did. Apparently you like to assume that no one else does what you claim that they do..
Oh wow. You got that conclusion from my sentence? You really don't understand English do you. I think we're at the root cause of all our disagreements. But keep arguing pointlessly with yourself. God knows you're not talking about anything I was talking about
This is what you clearly wrote: "There's nothing "recent" about it, and there's nothing specifically "windows" about it. And actually the last update that completely hosed one of my systems was caused by running "apt-get dist-upgrade""
Did you or did you not write that. In that statement you clearly said that it wasn't "recent" or "windows". You said that. Not me.
No one. Another part of English posts like this, especially the kind with multiple quotes that go one and one is that there are several points. Calling out your incorrect use of language by invoking an example of Linux hasn't changed any of the original goalposts or even changed the game.
Learn to follow a conversation.
It seems you get so defensive when someone calls you out on something and resort to deflection.
No I'm just pointing out that you responded to my point: Data is used and collected in aggregate.
Data collected in aggregate is individual data collected in large numbers. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge? If MS or Google is collecting my data and millions of users at the same time, they still are collecting my data. Now it is up to the individual company to ensure such data is anonymous and protected. But that relies on trusting that company's competency and intentions.
Then you raised a separate question on identifying you. To which my answer remains, data is used in aggregate regardless of how much you move the goal posts around. Go to MS's website and lookup the data that is sent. The telemetry collection is published. And then ask yourself if you will be targeted because of it.
I have. Again if you want to trust MS you can. I don't feel I am required to do so.
Of course. But the only reason you think this is relevant is because you're incapable of following a conversation. One which incidentally never said that MS didn't cause a past BSOD, only that they care about not causing them.
I said this in my first post on this topic: "And that's not what people are complaining about. What they are complaining about is that they have to patch for security but they have to accept patches which at the same time expose themselves to less privacy. What they are complaining about is that these updates are causing BSODs and other major bugs." It seems like you want to ignore points which you can't ignore. Or that you are incapable of scrolling up to follow the conversation.
Actually no. I don't acknowledge your statement. There's nothing "recent" about it, and there's nothing specifically "windows" about it.
So October 2017 isn't "recent". Fall 2017 isn't "recent"? March 2018 isn't "recent"? Or do you go by a different meaning of "recent"?
And actually the last update that completely hosed one of my systems was caused by running "apt-get dist-upgrade"
If this topic was about Linux stability you would have a point. Who's shifting the goal posts now?
Like what, exactly? Is there a particular feature you have in mind, with whose privacy policy you don't agree?
You mean besides the telemetry and the key logger which are enabled by default. Yes you can turn them off but Windows still sends data. Also unless you have Enterprise you cannot turn off sending data to MS completely. Recently MS has allowed users to see more of what data they are sending.
That UX problem is something I'll happily join in complaining about, but it's still wasn't a good excuse to stay with XP's wider attack surface. Similarly, Microsoft's sales tactics are another area for valid complaint, and have no bearing on whether it's acceptable to tell users to sabotage their own security.,
Again my point was that users (especially non-Enterprise users) have to accept patches that they want with "features" they may not want. This is further exacerbated by the MS policy of rollup patches which do not separate out security and non-security components. In the past users could avoid certain patches if t that patch was troublesome but not any more.
Because, in aggregate, they care about what their users as a group do. To illustrate with an example, I'll use a previous career of mine involving collecting very sensitive personally-identifiable medical data.
You are asserting that they only care about the aggregate. I maintain unless you work for MS you can't be sure. My view of MS is not that trusting. In your case, I believe that there are laws regarding medical data (HIPAA). I do not believe that MS has to work under any such rules with their user data.
I will only guarantee something if you first guarantee that we keep playing the same sport and that the goal posts don't move around the field randomly to suit your narrative.
Did you post this: "You don't understand the difference between "you" and "al'y'all". Microsoft couldn't give a shit about what "you" do. However aggregated data about everyone is used for development decisions. So feel free to download and read the Anarchists Cookbook, the police won't come knocking on your door."
What you are saying that I'm changing the goal posts when I address a point you brought up. And your answer is? Yes you can guarantee or no you cannot?
Indeed they have, and now we have a company that has actively held back to try and improve on previous practices and yet all you can do is bitch about it. Good work.
So you acknowledge that given the recent history of Windows updates that users might be wary of any newer updates at the same time you dismiss their bitching?
You don't understand the difference between "you" and "al'y'all". Microsoft couldn't give a shit about what "you" do. However aggregated data about everyone is used for development decisions. So feel free to download and read the Anarchists Cookbook, the police won't come knocking on your door.
So can you guarantee that any information that MS collects is protected and cannot possibly identify me in any way as to not sacrifice my privacy? That depends on how much I trust MS on their motives and their competency.
And so does MS which is precisely why they pulled the release before it was released to the general public. Admins everywhere should be cheering at their decision as a triumph of software development over marketing bozos pushing out garbage in favour of an artificial deadline.
Now, I'm all in favor of suggesting Microsoft should be responsible for making a perfect product that never causes issues, and as I said, you can hate Microsoft all you want... I'm just sick of seeing people suggesting that users go out of their way to ignore security best-practices, then whine about Windows having security problems.
We as users don't need MS to make a "perfect" product. We need MS to respect privacy while fixing security bugs.
Yes, that means updating. Keeping your systems patched and updated is the best way to reduce attack surface, regardless of what OS you use
And that's not what people are complaining about. What they are complaining about is that they have to patch for security but they have to accept patches which at the same time expose themselves to less privacy. What they are complaining about is that these updates are causing BSODs and other major bugs.
Keeping old and familiar things is comfortable, but it's also keeping around the broken permissions model that Microsoft has been trying to improve since Windows Vista. Remember how much that broke? It was mostly because Vista had a decent security model, rather than the crap from XP.
While some people refuse to change, that wasn't the major complaint of Vista. The major complaint was that it broke many things that took a while for drivers to be updated. Yes there were major changes to the security model but Vista chirping to ask for every single permission was annoying to many. Also another major complaint was how many brand new systems were sold as "Vista Capable" when they could only use the most crippled version of Vista.
Microsoft doesn't care about the porn you watch or how many hours you spend on My Little Pony forums. They care about whether the worm infections causing havoc in Brazil all started from a website on a common domain, or use binaries with the same hashes.
If MS doesn't care about those things then why are they increasingly gathering more data about what their users do? MS cares about all of that. It's a not a binary thing.
Finally, please stop complaining that your hardware from 1994 doesn't work with the new updates. I'm terribly sorry that your vendor doesn't bother to support driver APIs less than a decade old, but it's time to move on. Those random bluescreens and lockups are usually not Microsoft's fault; it's that the third-party vendor doesn't think stability is enough of a priority to actually test their drivers.
You're the only person it's not clear to. There's only one FBI investigation of Trump going on and it includes Russian interference in the election. Flynn was stumping for Trump and meeting with the Russian Ambassador, so yes, he was caught up in that investigation.
My point which you clearly missed or are ignoring is that no FISA request would be required to monitor the Russian ambassador. Therefore, the FBI would not need to be make sure that they are "on solid ground" because the CIA and NSA would have already been monitoring him.
But let's look at what we know. The FBI is investigating events that happened before and around November 2016. Please tell me why the FBI needs a FISA request to surveillance people for things that have already happened in the past? You do understand FISA requests are for FUTURE surveillance and that these requests do not circumvent the linear nature of time?
Could the FBI made FISA requests within the last year on the same people: Yes. Could Trump personnel be communicating with Russians in the year 2017? Sure if they were idiots still communicating with the Russians. Would it magically grant the FBI the ability to go back in time to 2016 and get surveillance from the past? No.
True but this was a working system. The displays used to work absolutely fine and then suddenly stopped after a software update which appeared to add no new features related to the display functionality.
Does Apple or any software company list every single change in an update? No they list the major changes. There could be change that affects the display system that isn't listed. That also doesn't include sub-systems that are affected.
This was not a hardware malfunction. While it is possible to concoct scenarios where this sort of thing could happen entirely by accident you are beginning to stretch the bounds of probability.
I would argue the probability increases greatly when Apple doesn't test whether a software update can affect 3rd party hardware. Just like a recent MacOS update has broken 3rd party DisplayLink displays.
However, when you then include the fact that basically all 3rd part screens were affected for me that stretches probability beyond breaking point unless all the 3rd party screens were identical.
Where do you get "all"? The original story from a few weeks ago says: "Apple released iOS 11.3 at the end of March, and the update is killing touch functionality in iPhone 8s repaired with some aftermarket screens." Some iPhone 8 3rd party displays were affected. Not all iPhone 8 displays. Not all 3rd party displays made for the 6, 7, or X. The fact that some iPhone 8 displays says to me that if it is an Apple conspiracy, they are high selective about it. And they fixed the problem within a few weeks. That's an inept conspiracy IMO.
The 2020 olympics will be broadcast in 8k in japan, so it'll probably be available as a stream in some other countries.
Yes but in different countries, the resolution is up to the licensee when it comes to broadcast TV. So NBC in the US has to broadcast in 8K which is not yet part of any broadcast standard. In the US and Canada, the implemented ATSC standard does not support resolutions above 1080p. While the FCC has approved newer versions of ATSC, they have not been implemented yet. Certainly NBC could show the Olympics in 2020 on cable at 8K and restrict broadcast to 1080p but I doubt that they would put in the time and expense to do that because the issue there is that the cable companies have to support 8K cable boxes. Considering those cheap bastards won't upgrade my 10+ year old cable box, I don't see it happening.
The other nonsensical point that was brought up was that the Mayans didn't extend their calendar past 2012 therefore 2012 must be the doomsday according to them. The fact that the Mayan civilization didn't survive long enough to extend the calendar might be the more obvious reason why they didn't extend it.
Slashdot Mirror
Go do your own damn research. I'm not your servant. I just said "I don't want a data center in your town"
I did. But what you are saying is that you won't back up your opinion when challenged.
You haven't even seen a data center apparently.
Please read my other post. I specifically posted images of Apple's data center in North Carolina. 1) You can't really see it from the road. 2) It's located 4 miles outside the nearest town.
How is an industrial building used as a data center in America more "ugly" than an industrial building in, let's say Europe?
Please post what you describe as "data centers that look like shit". Also you do understand that most data centers are located away from town centers, right? With the space and power requirements, Apple and Google puts their data centers very specifically away from everything.
Have you guys ever seen a datacenter? "Nondescript" is one word for them. Who would want that in their town?
Yes I have. Here is Apple's datacenter in North Carolina. It looks like a one-story building in the middle of nowhere that you can't really see from the road.
Why do you care if someone builds a data center in your town if it doesn't affect you?
While true that there are not many permanent jobs in a datacenter, what do you mean by energy rates going up and "ugly" data center? At best the datacenter is a non-descript building just like any other building. With Apple specifically it says in the title that they were attracted by the abundant green energy nearby. Combined with Apple's zero footprint policies, it's unlikely that the locals might see their energy rates go down as Apple will sell back excess energy.
You can get anything you want in the PC market. You always could get all sorts of weird shit that would put any Apple options to shame. What Apple did was to heavily market this stuff and then pretend they were the one's that invented it (or the only ones that had it).
Today maybe. Back in 1998, you had your choice of mostly beige. I remember back then that Dell was unique in that it offered black. Certainly no bright colors.
Nope. Bank statements weren't lost. Bank statements sent to be destroyed don't have a receipt for being destroyed despite being on general nondescript tapes in a large collection of other tapes that were destroyed.
Again your assertion. The bank cannot confirm the tapes were destroyed.
Credit card numbers? What are you talking about? There's not enough credit card information on a bank statement to financially affect a customer. Maybe in some other countries stuff that is normally sent by unsecured mail has such stupid security practices, but not here. The biggest concerns even by the Australian media have pointed out to the fact that you could in theory match a transaction to a person. Nothing more.
Again your assertion. Do you have statements from the bank? Remember these statements go back 10 years and while it is not prudent to list the credit card numbers on a statement these days you cannot say that the bank didn't do that in the past especially with their own cards. On my statement it currently lists the last 4 digits of my CC number. I can assure you at one point, the bank listed the entire CC number as the account number.
You don't understand quite how benign the data on statements are do you. Here's a hint: They contain: Name, address, your account number, and a list of purchases. In Australia the only thing on that list that isn't routinely shared with anyone who asks is your list of purchases.
So let me see if I understand you correctly: First, you don't think that it's a problem that someone might get my account number, name, and address, as well as a history of purchases. I want to clarify that you understand that might have disclosed. Do you know what Identity Theft uses? That same information.
Second what kind of bank do you do business with that shares all your information? No bank I've ever done business with has disclosed my purchase history with another party.
Third any party that knows this information is one I've given the explicit information not strangers. For example my landlord knows where I live and how much I pay in rent. What you do seem to ignore is that as a stranger you don't know that information. Also my landlord doesn't know how much I paid in credit card bills or which bank issued my credit card. My landlord only knows the information I've provided.
Sign up for credit monitoring? What a strange concept. I get an automatic notification if something out of the ordinary happens such as the first time a new debit transaction occurs, not to mention that 2FA has been standard practice for banks for any withdrawals for any reason other than a swipe of a CHIP+PIN card or a pre-authorized transaction for the best part of 10 years.
I don't think you know what Credit Monitoring is. It's not a notification that a charge has been made. It's a notification that a new account has been created. Please read up on Identity Theft.
As someone who's life savings are affected by this breach ... *yawn*.
Well if you don't want to think about the ramifications, that's your own fault.
Not merely more. Apple's contention is that Qualcomm is charging them twice called double dipping. There are two ways to license patents in chips: directly and indirectly. For example if you want to use ARM patents in a chip you can either negotiate with ARM for a license then approach a chip foundrey to make the chips (which many companies like Apple does) or you can buy chips from companies that have an ARM license (Samsung, TI, NVidia, etc). What Apple is claiming is that they bought chips from a company that made Qualcomm chips but that Qualcomm also wants license fees in addition to what they purchased.
The customer can't do anything about this. Largely they should be unaffected by it as well. Unless you're worried someone may find your receipt from "Illegal and Immoral things R Us" along with your name at the top the only other exposure is that this contributes 25 points towards a 100 point identity check. So not even enough information for identity theft.
And how did you draw that conclusion? Bank statements for a decade were lost. That's a lot of information on any particular person. Were other account numbers in those statements? For example if you paid your credit card bill then the CC number might be exposed or at a minimum the bank that issued the credit card. You've asserted a lot based on a lack of information.
So... the customer can do nothing. It's not confirmed that the data was mishandled. The regulator was informed and deemed it all okay. And all that really was identified is that a receipt for the destruction was missing.
Which is troubling. The data should have been destroyed. In the bank's best case scenario, they were destroyed but someone was lax in confirming it. In the bank's worse case scenario, the tapes were taken.
How would the customer (I have 4 accounts with this bank) benefit in knowing?
Maybe the customer would like to check if any accounts for possible breaches. Maybe the customer would need to sign up for credit monitoring to ensure that their accounts haven't been breached.
As Jefferson put it, a free government is one instituted with the consent of the people to protect their rights and interests.
Yes but that's the US government at best. The poster mentioned other governments like the Russians and the Chinese specifically. It's not practical to implement this with multiple governments who have different agendas.
I don't think that's a problem with asymmetric paired keys. The public key would be on the phone and is vulnerable to capture and reuse but that's the point of a public key.
The manufacturer is not forced to grant their request.
I don't know if that is true.
What's not to love? I have no issue with the government inspecting my property and even my very self -- as long as they are acting under the orders of the court. At some point, you have to trust your government.
The problem is that there is more than one government in the world. Right now what keeps companies like Apple from complying with foreign governments is the lack of the ability. That means never traveling to other countries. For example if you visit China, the government could arrest you and then would have possession of your phone which they could ask Apple or Samsung to unlock. It's not like China hasn't been involved with industrial espionage on a grand scale for decades. Right now if you visit China for work, one piece of advice is to leave your devices at home that may any sensitive company information.
In the article Ozzie proposes a slight modification to the golden key solutions previously proposed. Instead of a single master key that would unlock every single device or system, his system relies on the manufacturer or creator to create specific asymmetric paired keys. When law enforcement requires a device or account to be unlocked, the manufacturer can unlock with their private paired key. In the case of San Bernandino, Apple would unlock only that particular iPhone.
The problem with this is that it requires the creator or manufacturer to be the stewards of these keys for an indefinite amount of time. In the case of Apple, they have to maintain keys for as long as an iPhone could exist which could be decades. It is also going to be problematic for companies or organizations that no longer exist. When companies go bankrupt, one of the few remaining assets they could sell is their data.
It doesn't shift the problem of risk to the stewards. It is still possible that the keys could be stolen; it just means hackers do not have to steal a single key.
Practically how will this work with independent developers? Open source developers would never follow this system.
Because the method of collecting and the storage ends up different. Individual data collection implies tracking individuals, implies security issues that are greatly reduced in aggregate data. Learn the difference.
Bahahaha. You do understand that even the way MS collects data is capable of tracking individuals, right? What MS claims is that the data is anonymized so that individuals cannot be identified but that does not mean they cannnot be tracked. I work in data and it would fairly useless if individuals could not be tracked. Take for example, the diagnostic reports that we know MS is collecting data. Based on the hardware configuration MS would probably like to know if certain hardware like a GPU has issues with a particular crash. Windows will send hardware configuration along with the diagnostic report. That hardware information can be used to track someone. MS can certainly use the hardware configuration to assign an ID to the computer.
Thanks for highlighting the relevant bits. You should scroll through and re-read everything we've said about BSODs so far and why their complaints are being taken seriously.
I did. Apparently you like to assume that no one else does what you claim that they do..
Oh wow. You got that conclusion from my sentence? You really don't understand English do you. I think we're at the root cause of all our disagreements. But keep arguing pointlessly with yourself. God knows you're not talking about anything I was talking about
This is what you clearly wrote: "There's nothing "recent" about it, and there's nothing specifically "windows" about it. And actually the last update that completely hosed one of my systems was caused by running "apt-get dist-upgrade""
Did you or did you not write that. In that statement you clearly said that it wasn't "recent" or "windows". You said that. Not me.
No one. Another part of English posts like this, especially the kind with multiple quotes that go one and one is that there are several points. Calling out your incorrect use of language by invoking an example of Linux hasn't changed any of the original goalposts or even changed the game. Learn to follow a conversation.
It seems you get so defensive when someone calls you out on something and resort to deflection.
No I'm just pointing out that you responded to my point: Data is used and collected in aggregate.
Data collected in aggregate is individual data collected in large numbers. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge? If MS or Google is collecting my data and millions of users at the same time, they still are collecting my data. Now it is up to the individual company to ensure such data is anonymous and protected. But that relies on trusting that company's competency and intentions.
Then you raised a separate question on identifying you. To which my answer remains, data is used in aggregate regardless of how much you move the goal posts around. Go to MS's website and lookup the data that is sent. The telemetry collection is published. And then ask yourself if you will be targeted because of it.
I have. Again if you want to trust MS you can. I don't feel I am required to do so.
Of course. But the only reason you think this is relevant is because you're incapable of following a conversation. One which incidentally never said that MS didn't cause a past BSOD, only that they care about not causing them.
I said this in my first post on this topic: "And that's not what people are complaining about. What they are complaining about is that they have to patch for security but they have to accept patches which at the same time expose themselves to less privacy. What they are complaining about is that these updates are causing BSODs and other major bugs." It seems like you want to ignore points which you can't ignore. Or that you are incapable of scrolling up to follow the conversation.
Actually no. I don't acknowledge your statement. There's nothing "recent" about it, and there's nothing specifically "windows" about it.
So October 2017 isn't "recent". Fall 2017 isn't "recent"? March 2018 isn't "recent"? Or do you go by a different meaning of "recent"?
And actually the last update that completely hosed one of my systems was caused by running "apt-get dist-upgrade"
If this topic was about Linux stability you would have a point. Who's shifting the goal posts now?
Like what, exactly? Is there a particular feature you have in mind, with whose privacy policy you don't agree?
You mean besides the telemetry and the key logger which are enabled by default. Yes you can turn them off but Windows still sends data. Also unless you have Enterprise you cannot turn off sending data to MS completely. Recently MS has allowed users to see more of what data they are sending.
That UX problem is something I'll happily join in complaining about, but it's still wasn't a good excuse to stay with XP's wider attack surface. Similarly, Microsoft's sales tactics are another area for valid complaint, and have no bearing on whether it's acceptable to tell users to sabotage their own security.,
Again my point was that users (especially non-Enterprise users) have to accept patches that they want with "features" they may not want. This is further exacerbated by the MS policy of rollup patches which do not separate out security and non-security components. In the past users could avoid certain patches if t that patch was troublesome but not any more.
Because, in aggregate, they care about what their users as a group do. To illustrate with an example, I'll use a previous career of mine involving collecting very sensitive personally-identifiable medical data.
You are asserting that they only care about the aggregate. I maintain unless you work for MS you can't be sure. My view of MS is not that trusting. In your case, I believe that there are laws regarding medical data (HIPAA). I do not believe that MS has to work under any such rules with their user data.
I will only guarantee something if you first guarantee that we keep playing the same sport and that the goal posts don't move around the field randomly to suit your narrative.
Did you post this: "You don't understand the difference between "you" and "al'y'all". Microsoft couldn't give a shit about what "you" do. However aggregated data about everyone is used for development decisions. So feel free to download and read the Anarchists Cookbook, the police won't come knocking on your door."
What you are saying that I'm changing the goal posts when I address a point you brought up. And your answer is? Yes you can guarantee or no you cannot?
Indeed they have, and now we have a company that has actively held back to try and improve on previous practices and yet all you can do is bitch about it. Good work.
So you acknowledge that given the recent history of Windows updates that users might be wary of any newer updates at the same time you dismiss their bitching?
You don't understand the difference between "you" and "al'y'all". Microsoft couldn't give a shit about what "you" do. However aggregated data about everyone is used for development decisions. So feel free to download and read the Anarchists Cookbook, the police won't come knocking on your door.
So can you guarantee that any information that MS collects is protected and cannot possibly identify me in any way as to not sacrifice my privacy? That depends on how much I trust MS on their motives and their competency.
And so does MS which is precisely why they pulled the release before it was released to the general public. Admins everywhere should be cheering at their decision as a triumph of software development over marketing bozos pushing out garbage in favour of an artificial deadline.
Huh? Some publicly released updates have BSOD issues. That's the complaint and worry. Yes MS delayed the April update but a patch in March caused BSODs. A patch in October 2017 caused BSODs. The Windows 10 Fall Creators Update also caused BSODs.
Now, I'm all in favor of suggesting Microsoft should be responsible for making a perfect product that never causes issues, and as I said, you can hate Microsoft all you want... I'm just sick of seeing people suggesting that users go out of their way to ignore security best-practices, then whine about Windows having security problems.
We as users don't need MS to make a "perfect" product. We need MS to respect privacy while fixing security bugs.
Yes, that means updating. Keeping your systems patched and updated is the best way to reduce attack surface, regardless of what OS you use
And that's not what people are complaining about. What they are complaining about is that they have to patch for security but they have to accept patches which at the same time expose themselves to less privacy. What they are complaining about is that these updates are causing BSODs and other major bugs.
Keeping old and familiar things is comfortable, but it's also keeping around the broken permissions model that Microsoft has been trying to improve since Windows Vista. Remember how much that broke? It was mostly because Vista had a decent security model, rather than the crap from XP.
While some people refuse to change, that wasn't the major complaint of Vista. The major complaint was that it broke many things that took a while for drivers to be updated. Yes there were major changes to the security model but Vista chirping to ask for every single permission was annoying to many. Also another major complaint was how many brand new systems were sold as "Vista Capable" when they could only use the most crippled version of Vista.
Microsoft doesn't care about the porn you watch or how many hours you spend on My Little Pony forums. They care about whether the worm infections causing havoc in Brazil all started from a website on a common domain, or use binaries with the same hashes.
If MS doesn't care about those things then why are they increasingly gathering more data about what their users do? MS cares about all of that. It's a not a binary thing.
Finally, please stop complaining that your hardware from 1994 doesn't work with the new updates. I'm terribly sorry that your vendor doesn't bother to support driver APIs less than a decade old, but it's time to move on. Those random bluescreens and lockups are usually not Microsoft's fault; it's that the third-party vendor doesn't think stability is enough of a priority to actually test their drivers.
This is kinda a strawman argument isn't it? I think many admins care that Windows updates have been causing BSODs.
You're the only person it's not clear to. There's only one FBI investigation of Trump going on and it includes Russian interference in the election. Flynn was stumping for Trump and meeting with the Russian Ambassador, so yes, he was caught up in that investigation.
My point which you clearly missed or are ignoring is that no FISA request would be required to monitor the Russian ambassador. Therefore, the FBI would not need to be make sure that they are "on solid ground" because the CIA and NSA would have already been monitoring him.
But let's look at what we know. The FBI is investigating events that happened before and around November 2016. Please tell me why the FBI needs a FISA request to surveillance people for things that have already happened in the past? You do understand FISA requests are for FUTURE surveillance and that these requests do not circumvent the linear nature of time?
Could the FBI made FISA requests within the last year on the same people: Yes. Could Trump personnel be communicating with Russians in the year 2017? Sure if they were idiots still communicating with the Russians. Would it magically grant the FBI the ability to go back in time to 2016 and get surveillance from the past? No.
True but this was a working system. The displays used to work absolutely fine and then suddenly stopped after a software update which appeared to add no new features related to the display functionality.
Does Apple or any software company list every single change in an update? No they list the major changes. There could be change that affects the display system that isn't listed. That also doesn't include sub-systems that are affected.
This was not a hardware malfunction. While it is possible to concoct scenarios where this sort of thing could happen entirely by accident you are beginning to stretch the bounds of probability.
I would argue the probability increases greatly when Apple doesn't test whether a software update can affect 3rd party hardware. Just like a recent MacOS update has broken 3rd party DisplayLink displays.
However, when you then include the fact that basically all 3rd part screens were affected for me that stretches probability beyond breaking point unless all the 3rd party screens were identical.
Where do you get "all"? The original story from a few weeks ago says: "Apple released iOS 11.3 at the end of March, and the update is killing touch functionality in iPhone 8s repaired with some aftermarket screens." Some iPhone 8 3rd party displays were affected. Not all iPhone 8 displays. Not all 3rd party displays made for the 6, 7, or X. The fact that some iPhone 8 displays says to me that if it is an Apple conspiracy, they are high selective about it. And they fixed the problem within a few weeks. That's an inept conspiracy IMO.
The 2020 olympics will be broadcast in 8k in japan, so it'll probably be available as a stream in some other countries.
Yes but in different countries, the resolution is up to the licensee when it comes to broadcast TV. So NBC in the US has to broadcast in 8K which is not yet part of any broadcast standard. In the US and Canada, the implemented ATSC standard does not support resolutions above 1080p. While the FCC has approved newer versions of ATSC, they have not been implemented yet. Certainly NBC could show the Olympics in 2020 on cable at 8K and restrict broadcast to 1080p but I doubt that they would put in the time and expense to do that because the issue there is that the cable companies have to support 8K cable boxes. Considering those cheap bastards won't upgrade my 10+ year old cable box, I don't see it happening.
The other nonsensical point that was brought up was that the Mayans didn't extend their calendar past 2012 therefore 2012 must be the doomsday according to them. The fact that the Mayan civilization didn't survive long enough to extend the calendar might be the more obvious reason why they didn't extend it.