There is nothing that will work in the foreseeable future. The public does not care enough, and the politicians have a vested interest in not caring.
Laws will not be passed because both parties are owned by corporate interests. Sometimes the corporate interest is split on an issue, and something can happen. But virtually all corporations will oppose regulations that require security---as well as laws that establish greater liability for poor security.
The Equifax breach is the largest compromise of public data, and there is little outrage. Not enough to force real change by Congress. There will be minor changes, if anything happens at all.
Until a hacker does something truly drastic, the general public will remain blissfully ignorant of the risks. And by drastic, I mean something like bringing down the power grid, or flooding a region by tampering with a dam.
Most of the pre-Millenial generations do not understand how much data is exposed and how it can be misused. Sure, IT workers of any age will understand, but the older cohort as a whole does not. For those people, it will take a concrete disaster to drive the message home. My own parents are prime examples, in spite of attempts to educate or warn them.
For decades, IT security has been "out of sight, out of mind". A lot of people choose to remain ignorant, and the corporate leaders profit from it in the short term.
Their biggest challenge, they say, will not be perfecting the algorithms but rather convincing telcos to allow the technology to piggyback on existing telecommunications lines.
Telecoms will suddenly become very interested if government agencies responsible for emergency response or geological surveys showed up with cash in hand.
Or the FCC could mandate it. We already give the telcos in this country enough.
If you aren't even present to be offended, then how can you offer reliable testimony?
Obviously, you wouldn't know about it unless someone talked about it. In that case, the original witness would have to report the behavior or testify about it.
Crimes have to be proven. You can't just form a lynch mob based off of half-baked accusations.
Good thing there is a lawsuit then, so the legal system can do its job.
This inclination to engage in virtual lynchings in the press really isn't appropriate and never was.
As long as the press reports the facts, they aren't doing anything wrong. If they encourage or advocate a response, then that's beyond the scope of a reporter.
Who cares if the public is upset by the facts? No one is responsible for reigning in the public. If someone lied, then that should be reported once it's established. The public can change their minds if the facts demand it.
Sovereign immunity applies, in limited form, to Native American tribes on reservations. Typically, state and local enforcement have no jurisdiction on tribal lands either.
I would assume that if the Chinese, German, etc. government acquires a US patent, that patent is still subjected to US law, so what's the difference?
Evidently, inter partes review is limited to US patent holders (whether real or incorporated), otherwise there would be nothing to report.
I'm not sure why anyone concludes in general that more government rules would be an effective answer.
I am entirely unclear on your position. If someone abuses a set of rules, what is the problem with making a new rule or issuing a clarification to end the abuse?
T-Mobile zero-rates your bandwidth to Netflix if you've opted into BingeOn, so they've already made a tacit acknowledgement of Netflix's popularity and value.
I wouldn't be surprised if T-Mobile pays Netflix a deeply discounted rate. Netflix gets virtually guaranteed subscriptions and word of mouth, and T-Mobile can probably reduce advertising buys just by luring people with the Netflix promotion.
Given Netfilx's trend to add more garbage SJW/PC/Feminist content
Netflix has some content that pisses off liberals.
Trust me, I've heard all about how their teen-suicide show (can't recall the name) will lead to more suicides. Also the whining about how House of Cards features a power-hungry, corrupt Democrat as its lead character.
You end up with billions of breached accounts on Yahoo. Thank you Marissa Mayer.
The breach happened on her watch, but I seriously doubt the vulnerable infrastructure was designed or built during her tenure. A modern CEO/CIO/CSO can expect to inherit a security nightmare these days. Very few organizations put serious effort into IT security---although this is gradually improving, it is still not the norm.
You hear about rigging of Trending & Landing page of Youtube by its Brand & Diversity officer, Earnest Pettie.
Who cares? If you don't like the service, don't use the service.
If they're manually tweaking their recommendations, the suggestions could become better or worse. People will try to game any automated system (e.g., google bombing), so manual intervention and tweaking are always going to be necessary. Decide whether it's adequate, and leave if it isn't.
They could figure that out relatively easily. Also, the effect would be limited to personnel in/near the embassy. Apparently, some attacks have occurred outside the embassy grounds.
Anyway: if the americans REALLY suspect a new weapon, they would not have closed the embassy, but replaced the personell with scientists to try and discover what was going on.
If America is developing the same kind of weapon, we would rather pull our people out instead of tipping our hand by deploying a countermeasure.
This is a very poor analogy. It hints at serious deficiencies in security.
Most major attacks involve an initial point of ingress, a period of observation, further compromises and privilege escalation, additional network reconnaissance, and, finally, exfiltration of sensitive data and/or sabotage.
If you are logging and monitoring effectively, you can detect an attacker during the early stages and prevent him from accessing sensitive material. This requires a skilled and responsive security team, but it is possible for any medium-to-large enterprise.
If you're only looking at your logs after the shit has hit the fan, then I'm sorry to say---your security posture is weak, and you are asking to be compromised. You essentially have no capacity to identify or locate an attacker on your network.
Oh, I agree that this is just going to burn the rest of their money.
But I was responding to question "do they have recourse?"---yes, they do.
If they want the CEO to reinvent the company, it's their money. I imagine that most of them are rich enough that they won't starve after losing a few million dollars.
(Hell, commercial applications could afford RADAR/LIDAR and all sorts of sensors that would be impractical on a consumer vehicle and it would still be difficult.)
Huh? What year are you living in?
Tesla shipped the Model S with only camera+radar, but everyone else is doing camera/radar/lidar now---on systems designed for consumer vehicles.
Tesla actually got some press when they said they were not adding lidar to newer models. Maybe they think they can derive the information they need from camera+radar, but time will tell.
The best application of self-driving right now is automatic parking and automatic turning for tractor-trailers.
The easiest is not necessarily the best. Very little property damage and no lives are saved in this case. I'm all for convenience, but I think we can aim higher.
How come that with a mishmash of hearsay and "expert" opinion people pretend to know documents were stolen?
If his computer held classified information, no one outside the government is ever going to touch it again. If they are investigating an adversary's cyberattack, the government is never going to publicly disclose its methods, tools, or findings. That is all going to be classified too.
I seriously doubt anyone with first-hand knowledge will be talking about it; this isn't the kind of issue where an attack of conscience will lead someone to cross the line.
The public will never be told the details, so the closest we can get is expert speculation.
With XBox and Windows, Microsoft has a significant share of the consumer gaming market.
The Hololens shows that they can move into VR and AR effectively. It's easy to forget about this product since they're priced outside the consumer market---around $3K.
And let's not forget that Microsoft has its own Store now. That could become an enormous revenue stream if they can convince developers to use it. Given the success of Apple and Google in that arena, it may be worth suffering some large upfront losses to establish the Windows Store as the normal way of getting apps. As long as Windows supports x86/x64, geeks will continue to do whatever they want, but over 80% of the population just follows the path of least resistance.
Many games have autonomous vehicles that drive on patrol, or ferry you around, or whatever.
Most games have collision detection bugs that allow people to pass through walls---or allow a leaf to stop a vehicle from passing.
Plus, how many of those games simply have the vehicles simply bump into something and "stop"? In real life, that's a potentially fatal accident.
So it's quite doable, and by non AI experts at that.
They can't even make the vehicles behave safely in a world they control entirely. We're going to bring that level of reliability to the real world. Don't make me laugh.
It's an engineering task and nothing more.
A very difficult task. So difficult that the best minds of this generation are still working on it. But hey, you've heard that pathing is simple from some random iGame developer so it must be true.
I assume he meant half in the logical sense. I.e., there were two lines of inquiry that required additional investigation.
The first question regards the missing baryonic matter, which this article addressed. Kudos to the authors.
The second question is dark matter, which has not been directly observed or precisely described. Maybe that will be done before I'm dead, but who knows?
Or maybe the statement applied solely to baryonic matter, which is what most people think of when they see the word "matter" anyway. Either way, it resolves a significant problem.
Scientists have yet to present credible evidence that humans are causing global warming.
OK, then. You explain the increase in rainfall that has been observed in Japan over the last 30 years.
Your explanation must be backed by sound theory, historical evidence, and peer-reviewed research. We're all looking forward to receiving your wisdom. Best of luck, and godspeed.
The leapfrog in performance is going to "put the heat" on developers to create software that takes full advantage of the extra cores and speed.
It's almost like you have no idea how software development works. Anything that can parallelize beyond 4C/8T CPUs already runs on Xeon MP systems with dozens of cores. And no one is going to scream because their CPU is under 100% utilization.
Developers may be able to push a little further or optimize a little less at the high end, but consumer apps still have to run on last-gen i3 and i5 systems. This product creates no serious pressure on developers.
Possible exception for kernel devs---but only because they have to support the new product.
I reckon there were fan-cooled chargers that would do it in 30 minutes back then too.
Recharge efficiency and heat dissipation are two areas that these batteries specifically improve.
Smart phones and laptops have already benefited from faster recharging---as recently as 2-3 years ago. They can't just throw better cooling into the mix, so they rely on improvements like this.
But in the last ten years, the technology, capacity, size and charge times have barely changed.
The improvement of ~20% is much less than what we get in the microprocessor industry, but every bit helps.
And as far are charge times are concerned--- that is straight up wrong. You can now charge a phone from ~25% to ~75% in about 15 minutes, and that was not possible a decade ago. Fast-charging has quickly but quietly become the norm.
The ability to squeeze more energy into a smaller volume is what makes modern smart phones possible at all. Android could not exist if we still used 1980s-era battery tech.
There are other factors. LiPo batteries are about 1/5 lighter than traditional lithium ion batteries (of equal capacity). This is hugely advantageous for drones and other markets where weight really matters. And everyone likes lighter laptops/phones, even if the difference is not critical from a design standpoint.
Then let private industry provide the funds for research.
Like all that research funded by the tobacco industry that said smoking was OK?
Or the research funded by the sugar industry that implicated everything except sugar as a contributor to heart disease?
if the money comes from all of us the research should benefit all of us equally.
We can achieve this with mandatory FRAND licensing for all public-funds patents. Private organizations already do this for industry-standard technologies like DRAM and LTE, so we know it works.
This way, the universities have a financial incentive to perform useful research, and any interested party is guaranteed access to the technology at a reasonable cost.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing that will work in the foreseeable future. The public does not care enough, and the politicians have a vested interest in not caring.
Laws will not be passed because both parties are owned by corporate interests. Sometimes the corporate interest is split on an issue, and something can happen. But virtually all corporations will oppose regulations that require security---as well as laws that establish greater liability for poor security.
The Equifax breach is the largest compromise of public data, and there is little outrage. Not enough to force real change by Congress. There will be minor changes, if anything happens at all.
Until a hacker does something truly drastic, the general public will remain blissfully ignorant of the risks. And by drastic, I mean something like bringing down the power grid, or flooding a region by tampering with a dam.
Most of the pre-Millenial generations do not understand how much data is exposed and how it can be misused. Sure, IT workers of any age will understand, but the older cohort as a whole does not. For those people, it will take a concrete disaster to drive the message home. My own parents are prime examples, in spite of attempts to educate or warn them.
For decades, IT security has been "out of sight, out of mind". A lot of people choose to remain ignorant, and the corporate leaders profit from it in the short term.
How long until there is a documentable claim that this behavior killed somebody?
Next question that comes to mind: How long until I find out if my car was built with substandard materials?
Their biggest challenge, they say, will not be perfecting the algorithms but rather convincing telcos to allow the technology to piggyback on existing telecommunications lines.
Telecoms will suddenly become very interested if government agencies responsible for emergency response or geological surveys showed up with cash in hand.
Or the FCC could mandate it. We already give the telcos in this country enough.
If you aren't even present to be offended, then how can you offer reliable testimony?
Obviously, you wouldn't know about it unless someone talked about it. In that case, the original witness would have to report the behavior or testify about it.
Crimes have to be proven. You can't just form a lynch mob based off of half-baked accusations.
Good thing there is a lawsuit then, so the legal system can do its job.
This inclination to engage in virtual lynchings in the press really isn't appropriate and never was.
As long as the press reports the facts, they aren't doing anything wrong. If they encourage or advocate a response, then that's beyond the scope of a reporter.
Who cares if the public is upset by the facts? No one is responsible for reigning in the public. If someone lied, then that should be reported once it's established. The public can change their minds if the facts demand it.
Sovereign immunity applies, in limited form, to Native American tribes on reservations. Typically, state and local enforcement have no jurisdiction on tribal lands either.
I would assume that if the Chinese, German, etc. government acquires a US patent, that patent is still subjected to US law, so what's the difference?
Evidently, inter partes review is limited to US patent holders (whether real or incorporated), otherwise there would be nothing to report.
I'm not sure why anyone concludes in general that more government rules would be an effective answer.
I am entirely unclear on your position. If someone abuses a set of rules, what is the problem with making a new rule or issuing a clarification to end the abuse?
T-Mobile zero-rates your bandwidth to Netflix if you've opted into BingeOn, so they've already made a tacit acknowledgement of Netflix's popularity and value.
I wouldn't be surprised if T-Mobile pays Netflix a deeply discounted rate. Netflix gets virtually guaranteed subscriptions and word of mouth, and T-Mobile can probably reduce advertising buys just by luring people with the Netflix promotion.
Given Netfilx's trend to add more garbage SJW/PC/Feminist content
Netflix has some content that pisses off liberals.
Trust me, I've heard all about how their teen-suicide show (can't recall the name) will lead to more suicides. Also the whining about how House of Cards features a power-hungry, corrupt Democrat as its lead character.
You end up with billions of breached accounts on Yahoo. Thank you Marissa Mayer.
The breach happened on her watch, but I seriously doubt the vulnerable infrastructure was designed or built during her tenure. A modern CEO/CIO/CSO can expect to inherit a security nightmare these days. Very few organizations put serious effort into IT security---although this is gradually improving, it is still not the norm.
You hear about rigging of Trending & Landing page of Youtube by its Brand & Diversity officer, Earnest Pettie.
Who cares? If you don't like the service, don't use the service.
If they're manually tweaking their recommendations, the suggestions could become better or worse. People will try to game any automated system (e.g., google bombing), so manual intervention and tweaking are always going to be necessary. Decide whether it's adequate, and leave if it isn't.
They could figure that out relatively easily. Also, the effect would be limited to personnel in/near the embassy. Apparently, some attacks have occurred outside the embassy grounds.
I play the Unfounded Paranoia game too:
Anyway: if the americans REALLY suspect a new weapon, they would not have closed the embassy, but replaced the personell with scientists to try and discover what was going on.
If America is developing the same kind of weapon, we would rather pull our people out instead of tipping our hand by deploying a countermeasure.
logging : security :: pregnancy tests : contraception
This is a very poor analogy. It hints at serious deficiencies in security.
Most major attacks involve an initial point of ingress, a period of observation, further compromises and privilege escalation, additional network reconnaissance, and, finally, exfiltration of sensitive data and/or sabotage.
If you are logging and monitoring effectively, you can detect an attacker during the early stages and prevent him from accessing sensitive material. This requires a skilled and responsive security team, but it is possible for any medium-to-large enterprise.
If you're only looking at your logs after the shit has hit the fan, then I'm sorry to say---your security posture is weak, and you are asking to be compromised. You essentially have no capacity to identify or locate an attacker on your network.
No one is doing a thing about it other than going wahhh wahh wahh.
No one except the President can do anything about it. Pai is appointed, not elected.
Is it the same process that keeps executives' pay in line with their performance?
Absolutely.
The board inflates the CEO's salary, and the CEO inflates the stock price. They both get want they want. The process is working well for both sides.
It's the poor suckers who end up jobless that get shafted. And maybe the banks and the suppliers if you count collateral damage.
Oh, I agree that this is just going to burn the rest of their money.
But I was responding to question "do they have recourse?"---yes, they do.
If they want the CEO to reinvent the company, it's their money. I imagine that most of them are rich enough that they won't starve after losing a few million dollars.
(Hell, commercial applications could afford RADAR/LIDAR and all sorts of sensors that would be impractical on a consumer vehicle and it would still be difficult.)
Huh? What year are you living in?
Tesla shipped the Model S with only camera+radar, but everyone else is doing camera/radar/lidar now---on systems designed for consumer vehicles.
Tesla actually got some press when they said they were not adding lidar to newer models. Maybe they think they can derive the information they need from camera+radar, but time will tell.
The best application of self-driving right now is automatic parking and automatic turning for tractor-trailers.
The easiest is not necessarily the best. Very little property damage and no lives are saved in this case. I'm all for convenience, but I think we can aim higher.
The CEO decides what to do with the money---it's a corporate asset.
If the board of directors doesn't like what he's doing, they can fire him.
The board is elected by the shareholders, aka the investors.
If they don't like the new direction, they can fix the problem. There's a process for that.
How come that with a mishmash of hearsay and "expert" opinion people pretend to know documents were stolen?
If his computer held classified information, no one outside the government is ever going to touch it again. If they are investigating an adversary's cyberattack, the government is never going to publicly disclose its methods, tools, or findings. That is all going to be classified too.
I seriously doubt anyone with first-hand knowledge will be talking about it; this isn't the kind of issue where an attack of conscience will lead someone to cross the line.
The public will never be told the details, so the closest we can get is expert speculation.
With XBox and Windows, Microsoft has a significant share of the consumer gaming market.
The Hololens shows that they can move into VR and AR effectively. It's easy to forget about this product since they're priced outside the consumer market---around $3K.
And let's not forget that Microsoft has its own Store now. That could become an enormous revenue stream if they can convince developers to use it. Given the success of Apple and Google in that arena, it may be worth suffering some large upfront losses to establish the Windows Store as the normal way of getting apps. As long as Windows supports x86/x64, geeks will continue to do whatever they want, but over 80% of the population just follows the path of least resistance.
Many games have autonomous vehicles that drive on patrol, or ferry you around, or whatever.
Most games have collision detection bugs that allow people to pass through walls---or allow a leaf to stop a vehicle from passing.
Plus, how many of those games simply have the vehicles simply bump into something and "stop"? In real life, that's a potentially fatal accident.
So it's quite doable, and by non AI experts at that.
They can't even make the vehicles behave safely in a world they control entirely. We're going to bring that level of reliability to the real world. Don't make me laugh.
It's an engineering task and nothing more.
A very difficult task. So difficult that the best minds of this generation are still working on it. But hey, you've heard that pathing is simple from some random iGame developer so it must be true.
I assume he meant half in the logical sense. I.e., there were two lines of inquiry that required additional investigation.
The first question regards the missing baryonic matter, which this article addressed. Kudos to the authors.
The second question is dark matter, which has not been directly observed or precisely described. Maybe that will be done before I'm dead, but who knows?
Or maybe the statement applied solely to baryonic matter, which is what most people think of when they see the word "matter" anyway. Either way, it resolves a significant problem.
Because it's not just storm drains. They have active measures to control the flow of water.
Some places are fine with simple storm drains, but apparently Japan has required more extensive infrastructure.
Scientists have yet to present credible evidence that humans are causing global warming.
OK, then. You explain the increase in rainfall that has been observed in Japan over the last 30 years.
Your explanation must be backed by sound theory, historical evidence, and peer-reviewed research. We're all looking forward to receiving your wisdom. Best of luck, and godspeed.
The leapfrog in performance is going to "put the heat" on developers to create software that takes full advantage of the extra cores and speed.
It's almost like you have no idea how software development works. Anything that can parallelize beyond 4C/8T CPUs already runs on Xeon MP systems with dozens of cores. And no one is going to scream because their CPU is under 100% utilization.
Developers may be able to push a little further or optimize a little less at the high end, but consumer apps still have to run on last-gen i3 and i5 systems. This product creates no serious pressure on developers.
Possible exception for kernel devs---but only because they have to support the new product.
I reckon there were fan-cooled chargers that would do it in 30 minutes back then too.
Recharge efficiency and heat dissipation are two areas that these batteries specifically improve.
Smart phones and laptops have already benefited from faster recharging---as recently as 2-3 years ago. They can't just throw better cooling into the mix, so they rely on improvements like this.
But in the last ten years, the technology, capacity, size and charge times have barely changed.
The improvement of ~20% is much less than what we get in the microprocessor industry, but every bit helps.
And as far are charge times are concerned--- that is straight up wrong. You can now charge a phone from ~25% to ~75% in about 15 minutes, and that was not possible a decade ago. Fast-charging has quickly but quietly become the norm.
The ability to squeeze more energy into a smaller volume is what makes modern smart phones possible at all. Android could not exist if we still used 1980s-era battery tech.
There are other factors. LiPo batteries are about 1/5 lighter than traditional lithium ion batteries (of equal capacity). This is hugely advantageous for drones and other markets where weight really matters. And everyone likes lighter laptops/phones, even if the difference is not critical from a design standpoint.
Then let private industry provide the funds for research.
Like all that research funded by the tobacco industry that said smoking was OK?
Or the research funded by the sugar industry that implicated everything except sugar as a contributor to heart disease?
if the money comes from all of us the research should benefit all of us equally.
We can achieve this with mandatory FRAND licensing for all public-funds patents. Private organizations already do this for industry-standard technologies like DRAM and LTE, so we know it works.
This way, the universities have a financial incentive to perform useful research, and any interested party is guaranteed access to the technology at a reasonable cost.