So an exploit that affects virtually all the Intel processor out there in addition to some AMD ones as well as models of IBM and ARM processors shouldn't be taken seriously? It is an exploit that can be executed from JavaScript therefore from a web browser. How is that fear mongering by an AV vendor? Patch your systems and malware won't affect it.
[conspiracy logic]Obama wasn't there. He never mentioned this event. Therefore it is a conspiracy that he stopped. With the aid of Illuminati of course.[/conspiracy logic]
It does flow into a predictable pattern of when someone has no evidence, they explain it away as a conspiracy. The earth is flat and no one has taken a picture of the edge because the world's governments have set up patrols to keep people from visiting the edge. It's completely circular logic.
No this is Nunes' summary of hundreds of evidence. That's like saying my 3 paragraph explanation of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity should be considered the bible of all things in Physics. Considering how poorly I understand General Relativity, you might not want to do that. Unlike Nunes, I don't profess to have expertise in something. Why don't they release the hundreds of pages instead?
Software bugs (security, reliability or otherwise) are symptoms of a failed software development process. Pausing a flawed software development process to fix the bugs that the flawed development process has created is not a solution, it is a Band-Aid®. .,
Apple needs to fix its software development process.
To which the other poster pointed out two very specific explains of Spectre and Meltdown which were at the hardware level that Apple could not have anticipated nor tested against. These two examples were also not countered by other OS makers including Linux, Windows, and BSD (which I find to have the highest security and reliability testing).
And you responded:
Well, for starters... why not? If you have a use case, why not test for it. But more to my comment, you cannot test quality into a product, as you imply.
May I suggest some reading material --- Software Testing Techniques by Boris Beizer. It's an oldie, but a goodie.:) Perhaps you'll learn something about software testing, and stop making excuses for Apple's failings.
Please cite where I misquoted you. Or did you make a poor generalization regarding Apple software testing and were called out on it. Instead of acknowledging that you did so, you're trying to play a victim as if I misquoted you. I didn't misquote you. You make a poor generalization and refuse to admit it.
This is what you wrote when the poster noted how Apple could not have anticipated hardware security flaws.
"Perhaps you'll learn something about software testing, and stop making excuses for Apple's failings."
Software testing is only as good as the test case. The poster noted that if there is no test case like unforeseen, unknown hardware security problems, how can software testing overcome that beforehand? For example, these days software testing tests for buffer overflows but I would bet money that no one really did that decades ago. If Apple releases shoddy designed software it's on them but don't be so quick to assume that all bugs originated with them.
So you don't have an answer but would still like to take a swipe at Apple that every single OS developer failed to anticipate? Or could it be in this case, they simply could not have seen it coming?
Besides a generalized dismissal of the poster's question, could you answer his specific one: How would you have anticipated Meltdown and Spectre considering that they affect hardware that Apple does not control? Also please be specific as to why your solution should have been anticipated by every single OS out there like Linux, Windows, BSD, and MacOS.
I wonder how much of the decision was due to Apple. For those that don't know, MS didn't come up with the technology originally; the licensed it from a company called PrimeSense. Apple bought out that company in 2013. While the purchase would not have affected the MS license of the current technology it might have limited -any technology upgrades that MS might have negotiated later. Apple as a company doesn't license out their technology very often. Now this wasn't just a move by Apple to harm MS; Apple's new iPhone X uses a heavily miniaturized and advanced version of the same tech in the new face scanning sensors.
While there was some hate from hardcore gamers, the main problem with the public in general is that it came standard with the XBox One which made it $100 more expensive. Many people didn't feel they should be forced to pay for an accessory they may not have wanted. Rather than sell a version that didn't have it, MS just made it mandatory by making it always on, always listening. That turned off many people. By the time MS undid all of that and released a model without the Kinect, many people had bought the PS4 instead.
One thing that has been brought up before is that swatters will spoof numbers. Also with cell phones, some dispatchers in some precincts simply don't know real time where a cellphone caller is. After the fact, a cell phone can be traced but not real time.
While the movie certainly had faults, I wouldn't say the Shapiro's review is good. He makes so many assumptions and seems to forget the original trilogy so often it is hard to take him seriously.
The Force Awakens Apparently Never Happened. Shapiro's premise is that Star Killer Base was the only weapon that the First Order had yet destroying it didn't do any damage to the First Order. Star Killer Base was a major weapon and an important one because of its capacity to obliterate multiple planets at once. Destroying it did hurt the First Order; however, destroying it was never going to decimate the First Order just like destroying the Death Star I didn't prevent the Empire from creating Death Star II or still having an overwhelming fleet of warships. The First Order was going to be a threat before and after Star Killer Base; they just lost their ability to destroy multiple planets instantaneously.
There Is No Gravity In Space. Shapiro's critique is that bombs wouldn't work because there's no gravity. I mean this is a silly critique considering that practically none the fighter scenes in any Star Wars movies would actually work because there is no gravity in space. I think someone said that it was explained that the bombs are self-propelled but have a short range.
Snoke Is A Throwaway. True, he was. This is more a change of direction for me. They could have kept him and make him an formidable presence in Episode IX and then kill him. That would make Snoke the same as Emperor Palpatine and also make the plot in IX very predictable. As for easily dispatched by the Kylo Ren, does anyone remember RoTJ? Emperor Palpatine was thrown to his death by Darth Vader. Quite easily. You'd think a Sith Lord capable of seducing Vader could use force pull to save himself or something. The larger message here is that while formidable a Sith Lord (or Jedi) is not immortal. As for seducing Kylo Ren, Snoke did do that but if he didn't watch or pay attention to TFA or TLJ, Kylo Ren already was dark and Luke sensed it.
Kylo Ren Isn’t Intimidating. I really don't understand this one as TLJ certainly makes Kylo Ren intimidating. He is the new bad guy. This might be a complaint of TFA but not this film. I mean if anything, it shows Kylo Ren was biding his time and waiting for an opportunity to take power like any Sith would. Rey's presence gave it to him. As for Darth Vader not losing until RoTJ, that's not true of ANH or ESB. Vader lost a freaking Death Star in ANH. He also lost the Millennium Falcon several times in ESB as well as Luke. He got a consolation prize in capturing Solo but he didn't care about Solo.
Rey’s Backstory Sucks. Rey is a nobody. So what? We didn't know the backstory of other force users Emperor Palpatine, Yoda, Obi Wan, and most of Darth Vader's backstory by the end of RoTJ. They were fleshed out more in the prequels and maybe novels but the original three movies didn't tell you much about them. I would say this is more of a problem of expectations than anything else. People expected Rey to come from a grand bloodline but from what I know about the Star Wars universe, while force powers can run in families, anyone could have force powers. Now bear in mind, not everyone can have them but a force user can come from anywhere.
Luke’s Weird Farmer Life Is Weird. This is a stupid critique. One of the main questions that people were asking about since TFA is what Luke has been doing all this time. The film shows you exactly what he's been doing. He hasn't been training an army of Jedi or building a collection of Pokemon. This has been his boring life since going into exile.
Luke Is A Bad Teacher. Luke's lessons were terrible was the whole point people missed. Luke wanted to teach Rey just enough to get rid of her. He could sense that she had force powers but didn't know how powerful she was until after the second lesson. It was the same level of power he sensed in Kylo Ren. He wasn't going to actually train her like Yoda trained him. He was done training p
: "This is common knowledge to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity about the subject." You clearly have none.
When asked to actually back up your false claims, you're willing to say "it's common sense". Kao says you're wrong. That's all that there is to that.
This is not a matter of opinion. This dataset has been analyzed in depth by multiple parties that have specifically pointed out pervasive issues with duplicate email addresses, email addresses produced by fake generator websites, etc., and on top of that is publicly downloadable so you can verify for yourself. That is, if you had the smallest modicum of interest in understanding reality rather than tilting at windmills for the sake of fighting.
Please cite where you read that. You're not citing anything but your bias. When pointed out that's not what Kao said, you are the one bringing up things not cited. Again Kao does not say anything of that. He clearly says that most of the pro-NN comments were likely organic and breaks down his numbers. However, it seems you want to equate "form-letter" == pro-NN == bad == bots. Without the slightest nuance on what a letter-writing campaign is or any thought processes..
Not once. Cite one or more of the actual lies I've told, with some proof that it's a lie.
You would never believe it at this point when it comes from me, so why bother? Like I said multiple people have called you out. If I posted every link, you'd just deny them all. Really what would it take for you to accept it?
This was the post:"But someone sure went to a lot of effort to post over a million anti-Net Neutrality comments to the FCC using stolen identities a bot network."
These was your words : "And there were at least 7.5 million auto-generated pro-NN comments [futurism.com] as well. Both sides were replete with folks with far more tech savvy than common sense who thought that the comment mechanism was a ballot box, which, ironically enough, made it significantly harder for the FCC to sort though the mess to find any comments actually providing meaningful information."
The poster was clearly talking about bot-generated content. You tried to muddy the waters by trying to equate 7.5 million responses that were part of a letter-writing campaign with all bots. You also failed to cite the key findings of Kao report where he says clearly: "3. It’s highly likely that more than 99% of the truly unique comments were in favor of keeping net neutrality." So either you can't read or are being completely dishonest about what Kao wrote in black and white.
and then magically select the same bogus email address as did hundreds of others.
Please cite anywhere in Kao's report that says this. Or are you making this up?
This is common knowledge to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity about the subject, and Kao doesn't claim otherwise. Your gleeful attack of words you yourself substituted like "fake" and "bots" is purely a straw man tactic, and one you can take elsewhere
No it's not. You are taking what Kao wrote and twisting it because he clearly says something. When called out for your lack of comprehension, you just doubled down.
Again ProCD says you are wrong. It doesn't matter if the code is copyrighted or not according to you.
Actually, neither party claims that it's happening here.
Both sides agree on what Redbox is doing. That is not in dispute. Clearly you don't understand what happens in a case when no material issue of fact exists and how the courts have to rule. Perhaps you should read up on that
[sarcasm]Yes because ISPs can never update their lists or re-use DNS again.[/sarcasm] It's not like companies have to register the IP addresses they will use--oh wait, they totally have to register them.
You clearly can't read the chart or read the article. NOWHERE in the chart does it say all of these are fake. It says clearly in the chart "The vast majority of FCC comments were submitted as exact duplicates or as part of letter-writing/spam campaigns." This means the author has identified which comments were part of campaigns either by bot or by real people. However you interpreted it all as 100% bots due to your bias. In the very next sentence: "So how do we know which of these are legitimate public mailing campaigns, and which of these were bots?" The author then goes to do some analysis. Of all 22M he concludes "It turns out that there are 1.3 million of these.".
This is Kao's actual report. Please show me ANYWHERE in it where it says 7.5 million. It does not say it anywhere. Kao himself says 1.3 million. Clearly you didn't read it.
How will they know which addresses are VPNs? I'm prettt sure that ISPs can use DNS and know the addresses of commercial VPNs that most people will use.
Slashdot Mirror
So an exploit that affects virtually all the Intel processor out there in addition to some AMD ones as well as models of IBM and ARM processors shouldn't be taken seriously? It is an exploit that can be executed from JavaScript therefore from a web browser. How is that fear mongering by an AV vendor? Patch your systems and malware won't affect it.
[conspiracy logic]Obama wasn't there. He never mentioned this event. Therefore it is a conspiracy that he stopped. With the aid of Illuminati of course.[/conspiracy logic]
OMG. It makes much more sense now.
It does flow into a predictable pattern of when someone has no evidence, they explain it away as a conspiracy. The earth is flat and no one has taken a picture of the edge because the world's governments have set up patrols to keep people from visiting the edge. It's completely circular logic.
No this is Nunes' summary of hundreds of evidence. That's like saying my 3 paragraph explanation of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity should be considered the bible of all things in Physics. Considering how poorly I understand General Relativity, you might not want to do that. Unlike Nunes, I don't profess to have expertise in something. Why don't they release the hundreds of pages instead?
Software bugs (security, reliability or otherwise) are symptoms of a failed software development process. Pausing a flawed software development process to fix the bugs that the flawed development process has created is not a solution, it is a Band-Aid®.
.,
Apple needs to fix its software development process.
To which the other poster pointed out two very specific explains of Spectre and Meltdown which were at the hardware level that Apple could not have anticipated nor tested against. These two examples were also not countered by other OS makers including Linux, Windows, and BSD (which I find to have the highest security and reliability testing).
And you responded:
Well, for starters... why not? If you have a use case, why not test for it. But more to my comment, you cannot test quality into a product, as you imply.
:) Perhaps you'll learn something about software testing, and stop making excuses for Apple's failings.
May I suggest some reading material --- Software Testing Techniques by Boris Beizer. It's an oldie, but a goodie.
Please cite where I misquoted you. Or did you make a poor generalization regarding Apple software testing and were called out on it. Instead of acknowledging that you did so, you're trying to play a victim as if I misquoted you. I didn't misquote you. You make a poor generalization and refuse to admit it.
This is what you wrote when the poster noted how Apple could not have anticipated hardware security flaws.
"Perhaps you'll learn something about software testing, and stop making excuses for Apple's failings."
Software testing is only as good as the test case. The poster noted that if there is no test case like unforeseen, unknown hardware security problems, how can software testing overcome that beforehand? For example, these days software testing tests for buffer overflows but I would bet money that no one really did that decades ago. If Apple releases shoddy designed software it's on them but don't be so quick to assume that all bugs originated with them.
So you don't have an answer but would still like to take a swipe at Apple that every single OS developer failed to anticipate? Or could it be in this case, they simply could not have seen it coming?
Besides a generalized dismissal of the poster's question, could you answer his specific one: How would you have anticipated Meltdown and Spectre considering that they affect hardware that Apple does not control? Also please be specific as to why your solution should have been anticipated by every single OS out there like Linux, Windows, BSD, and MacOS.
I wonder how much of the decision was due to Apple. For those that don't know, MS didn't come up with the technology originally; the licensed it from a company called PrimeSense. Apple bought out that company in 2013. While the purchase would not have affected the MS license of the current technology it might have limited -any technology upgrades that MS might have negotiated later. Apple as a company doesn't license out their technology very often. Now this wasn't just a move by Apple to harm MS; Apple's new iPhone X uses a heavily miniaturized and advanced version of the same tech in the new face scanning sensors.
While there was some hate from hardcore gamers, the main problem with the public in general is that it came standard with the XBox One which made it $100 more expensive. Many people didn't feel they should be forced to pay for an accessory they may not have wanted. Rather than sell a version that didn't have it, MS just made it mandatory by making it always on, always listening. That turned off many people. By the time MS undid all of that and released a model without the Kinect, many people had bought the PS4 instead.
One thing that has been brought up before is that swatters will spoof numbers. Also with cell phones, some dispatchers in some precincts simply don't know real time where a cellphone caller is. After the fact, a cell phone can be traced but not real time.
While swatting itself isn't in the statutes as offense, this case seems to be the definition of depraved murder.
: "This is common knowledge to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity about the subject." You clearly have none.
When asked to actually back up your false claims, you're willing to say "it's common sense". Kao says you're wrong. That's all that there is to that.
This is not a matter of opinion. This dataset has been analyzed in depth by multiple parties that have specifically pointed out pervasive issues with duplicate email addresses, email addresses produced by fake generator websites, etc., and on top of that is publicly downloadable so you can verify for yourself. That is, if you had the smallest modicum of interest in understanding reality rather than tilting at windmills for the sake of fighting.
Please cite where you read that. You're not citing anything but your bias. When pointed out that's not what Kao said, you are the one bringing up things not cited. Again Kao does not say anything of that. He clearly says that most of the pro-NN comments were likely organic and breaks down his numbers. However, it seems you want to equate "form-letter" == pro-NN == bad == bots. Without the slightest nuance on what a letter-writing campaign is or any thought processes..
Not once. Cite one or more of the actual lies I've told, with some proof that it's a lie.
You would never believe it at this point when it comes from me, so why bother? Like I said multiple people have called you out. If I posted every link, you'd just deny them all. Really what would it take for you to accept it?
Wow you really don't remember what you just posted or are you back to lying again?
This was the post:"But someone sure went to a lot of effort to post over a million anti-Net Neutrality comments to the FCC using stolen identities a bot network."
These was your words : "And there were at least 7.5 million auto-generated pro-NN comments [futurism.com] as well. Both sides were replete with folks with far more tech savvy than common sense who thought that the comment mechanism was a ballot box, which, ironically enough, made it significantly harder for the FCC to sort though the mess to find any comments actually providing meaningful information."
The poster was clearly talking about bot-generated content. You tried to muddy the waters by trying to equate 7.5 million responses that were part of a letter-writing campaign with all bots. You also failed to cite the key findings of Kao report where he says clearly: "3. It’s highly likely that more than 99% of the truly unique comments were in favor of keeping net neutrality." So either you can't read or are being completely dishonest about what Kao wrote in black and white.
and then magically select the same bogus email address as did hundreds of others.
Please cite anywhere in Kao's report that says this. Or are you making this up?
This is common knowledge to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity about the subject, and Kao doesn't claim otherwise. Your gleeful attack of words you yourself substituted like "fake" and "bots" is purely a straw man tactic, and one you can take elsewhere
No it's not. You are taking what Kao wrote and twisting it because he clearly says something. When called out for your lack of comprehension, you just doubled down.
Please. You cite Trump because you don't any excuse for your lies.
I did. You just lied again and again because you refused to admit you were wrong.
Again ProCD says you are wrong. It doesn't matter if the code is copyrighted or not according to you.
Actually, neither party claims that it's happening here.
Both sides agree on what Redbox is doing. That is not in dispute. Clearly you don't understand what happens in a case when no material issue of fact exists and how the courts have to rule. Perhaps you should read up on that
[sarcasm]Yes because ISPs can never update their lists or re-use DNS again.[/sarcasm] It's not like companies have to register the IP addresses they will use--oh wait, they totally have to register them.
You clearly can't read the chart or read the article. NOWHERE in the chart does it say all of these are fake. It says clearly in the chart "The vast majority of FCC comments were submitted as exact duplicates or as part of letter-writing/spam campaigns." This means the author has identified which comments were part of campaigns either by bot or by real people. However you interpreted it all as 100% bots due to your bias. In the very next sentence: "So how do we know which of these are legitimate public mailing campaigns, and which of these were bots?" The author then goes to do some analysis. Of all 22M he concludes "It turns out that there are 1.3 million of these.".
This is Kao's actual report. Please show me ANYWHERE in it where it says 7.5 million. It does not say it anywhere. Kao himself says 1.3 million. Clearly you didn't read it.
How will they know which addresses are VPNs? I'm prettt sure that ISPs can use DNS and know the addresses of commercial VPNs that most people will use.