Each of those sites can do what they like---and if they have rules prohibiting racial discrimination, violence, or hate crimes, then they are behaving in a reasonably consistent fashion.
Nothing is stopping neo-Nazi sites from starting their own funding campaigns. If you're worried about their freedom, remember this: They are perfectly free to collect and distribute funds on their own.
There his a higher principal at place here which is being rather visibly injured.
Not at all.
He will have legal representation. Almost anything is adequate in this case, though. His act was caught on several cameras, so it's not like his lawyer has much to do. Maybe a plea deal.
At most, his lawyer could get plus/minus a few years on a plea in the face of overwhelming evidence. The plates on his car are visible, and his mom and teachers have both said he was alt-right with other signs of radicalization.
A legal defense fund is wasted money. That asshole is going to jail for a long time, no matter how much money is sunk into his defense.
Like it or not, this guy has the legal right to be a racist dick, it doesn't mean we should applaud others who decide to be just as bigoted or intolerant in return.
His "right to be a racist dick" ended when he decided to murder people who happened to be protesting against his beliefs.
Not sure where you live, but the right to be a murderer is not established in American law.
It's called case law, and it addresses the millions of potential issues that could be interpreted one way or the other under the law.
If Congress has a problem with a Supreme Court ruling, they can simply amend the underlying law.
If it's a constitutional case, then it's a little more complicated---but still possible. Good luck getting an amendment through with today's politics though.
They're a racial group, and race is a protected class.
Unlikely.
Their innate characteristic (race) was not the reason for termination. The behavior (defamation and hate speech) was the reason. There is no protection of hate speech or defamation---quite the opposite, in fact.
Sometimes you can argue that the stated reason is fake, and it's basically an attempt to talk their way around the law. In this case, however, there is an established pattern of behavior---such claims are clearly substantial.
Politically driven DNS denial of service is going to lead to alternate DNS roots.
This made me laugh.
The default root hints of Windows, Linux, Mac, iOS, Android, etc will continue to point to the same root servers that they use today. No matter how unfair you think it is, 99% of the world will use the existing DNS service.
So this "alternative DNS [root]" will have to be configured manually. But we already have decentralized namespaces on networks like Tor, which offer more features than just name resolution.
If anything, an alternative DNS will be part of a network with end-to-end privacy. If not Tor, then something similar.
Prohibiting re-identification for profit, political, etc purposes is an excellent idea. I was actually excited when I saw the headline.
But if they block researchers and disclosure of methods, then how will anyone ever know if re-identification is happening or even possible? How could we assess the risk of re-identification by malicious actors? What can we do to protect our personal privacy, our users, and our networks without detailed technical information?
The proposed law may protect citizens from corporate abuse, assuming it is enforced uniformly. But it also gives government agencies and organized criminals considerable leeway to develop capabilities without public oversight or defensive barriers/mitigations.
The only thing worse than no law is a backdoored law.
It looks like more and more commercial entities are starting to plan for climate change. (Although, of course, the businesses causing it still have a financial incentive to continue.)
If the denialists are right, these plans will end up costing the companies millions or billions of dollars when nothing happens and the climate "hoax" is revealed.
So, be on the watch for those bankruptcies. After all, these businesses planning for climate change are totally doomed, right?
If a room full of servers can do the task better than a room full of humans, then that's exactly what they have accomplished.
Doing the same task faster, more consistently, and with fewer errors is often more valuable than being able to perform a previously-impossible task. As a side benefit, automating a task may make new applications possible.
A human could perform any of the calculations that modern computers do, if they had the time and desire. However, the automated methods transform or create entire industries---online retailers, digital invoicing, modern banking and investing, etc.
I have no idea what could come out of this particular breakthrough because I don't do deep learning, but you can bet there will be applications coming from the people who buy the equipment.
The alternative is to release heat stored in the chemical bonds of fossils and release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which trap more heat.
Either way, you are releasing/retaining 4.5 GW of energy. The difference with solar is that you avoid a greenhouse effect which traps even more heat.
Remember that this sunlight has already reached the Earth's surface and is therefore part of our normal energy input from the Sun. The 4.5 GW absorbed by the solar array will radiate out eventually, just as it would naturally. The only difference is that it will do some useful work first---and it will radiate out from Europe instead of Africa.
isn't pouring lots of resources into a 30% more efficient petrol engine in 2017 somewhat akin to inventing 'a better buggy whip' in 1888
Not entirely.
There are some heavy-use cases where electric will not be a viable replacement for a long time. E.g., the batteries required for industrial equipment and commercial trucks would be enormous in many cases.
Getting diesel-level efficiency without those nasty diesel emissions is a plus.
That said, I expect this will be a nice improvement until regular passenger vehicles convert to electric. The conversion to electric is somewhat dependent on improvements to battery capacity and charger availability, both of which are outside the direct control of the auto makers (Tesla being the notable exception).
The fact that it ignited such a debate is a pretty tell-tale sign to me that there are still many open points worthy of consideration.
No, this is pretty much nonsense. Outrage has no bearing on the worthiness of an argument---neither pro nor con.
He stood up against several management policies, openly. This is often enough to get fired.
If Google valued ideals such as freedom of speech, it would not have terminated him. But Google is now a typical corporate outfit, where challenging management or causing controversy for the company will earn a death sentence.
I would also criticize his writing for using technical/jargon terms without consideration for the emotional/colloquial impact that those words typically carry. While he was not technically wrong, it is not wise to circulate documents without editing them for the expected audience. I.e., if you are writing to an authoritarian-progressive audience, then you ought to rework sections which might be misconstrued or seen as inflammatory.
He gambled without stacking the deck in his favor---and lost. I can respect his effort, but I do not understand how he could have expected a positive outcome.
Just don't understand what the paranoia is. Surely, somebody in the Defense Department's Cyber vetted the software. Yes?
That's where you run into problems with companies that release dodgy software.
Let's say you vet v1.1 to ensure it has no operational bugs that will affect your mission profile. You also verify that the software is not compromised in any appreciable way.
Eventually, there will be a vulnerability in v1.1, and you will have to upgrade to v1.2---ideally before any new missions are scheduled.
But wait, there's a critical bug in v1.2 so you cannot upgrade. You either accept the risk of operating with the v1.1 vulnerability, you postpone the mission, or you find another way to accomplish the objective.
If a manufacturer routinely releases poor-quality updates or takes too long to fix vulnerabilities, then it is absolutely reasonable to blacklist them.
And in this particular case, where the code is supplied by a company from an adversarial nation, maybe it is reasonable to exclude their products from consideration entirely.
Never understood the whole, "here Internet, take my passwords" mentality anyway.
They don't have your passwords---at least, not in a usable form.
You create a master password for the application. It encrypts your unique, per-site passwords and syncs them. LastPass only sees encrypted data.
Meanwhile, you can create a strong, unique password for every site that you use. You can even use unique names to obstruct doxxing.
The application acts as a local database so that you don't have to remember each and every logon. Your security is a little easier, and they have nothing useful assuming the crypto is solid.
It makes a lot of sense if you have a lot of accounts. Me, though... I don't sign up for enough things to make it worthwhile.
It hurts their ability to grow the economy? Oh, boo hoo, they have to pay more for American workers.
If a handful of American salaries turns your project from a profit to a loss, you are running on razor-thin margins to begin with. Maybe your company should be doing something else instead.
On the other hand, if you're making a decent profit and just want more---get fucked. Public policy doesn't need to hand out special benefits to successful businesses. Right now, the middle class needs a little more help than the shareholders.
Real immigration means coming over here, making a life, and investing long-term in the well-being of this country. The H1B program isn't immigration; it's indentured servitude V2.0
That sounds like he's just using something like Cheat Engine to change the clientside display
If the developer is really stupid, then maybe this is the case.
Or he could be using it to tamper with the client communication in order to exploit the underlying protocols.
Given those two options, I assume the latter. My assumption ascribes the developers a modicum of competence, and therefore imples a greater degree of respect for the attacker's skill.
It should be trivial to write the client to never really even understand transactions, just requests.
I use the term transaction loosely, not necessarily in reference to SQL. I.e., a client submits an action, the server processes that action, and then server returns a status update to the client.
Regardless of the underlying architecture, people have had trouble doing that for applications with real-world consequences. Do you seriously expect higher integrity from the MMO server?
Maybe he just pulled up a debugger to just make a show for a clueless reporter, and that it wasn't the actual hack.
This is possible, but he must be acquiring in-game goods and currency somehow. Legitimate acquisition is usually too slow to make a living, at least in the West.
He refused to do the hack in front of camera, which could indicate he is a fraud. It could also indicate he is very smart, as I wouldn't do that on camera either.
If Fidelity and others are adjusting their valuations based on compensation from the entity that they're evaluating, how is that not fraud?
There is an assumption that a private valuation is based on the fair, rigorous analysis of the company and its place in the market. If they are taking money (profit) to adjust their valuation (deceit), that's stretching into fraud territory. It's almost textbook that deceit + intent + profit = fraud.
Why is anything in a MMO except maybe basic movement done client-side?
Maybe movement and basic actions are all that is supposed to happen client-side.
How is it that a debugger can affect the currency attached to an account?
The client must interact with the server in some way to increment/decrement the currency in certain accounts. The server-side code that controls those interactions is probably riddled with security vulnerabilities. It's almost entirely custom code.
Think of how often Apache/IIS/PHP/etc vulnerabilities are discovered, and then recall that these products have been hammered by security professionals for years. And, most of the time, those professionals disclose their findings to the developer---something which I doubt is happening with MMO developers.
Shouldn't every transaction be started and logged serverside?
Gold is not the basis of all transactions. Spells use resources, crafting professions use resources, and health pools fluctuate.
Lots of things are happening 24/7, and it can be very difficult to determine what needs to be logged.
You'd think an account that suddenly increases in value by several billion, with no account receiving a similar decrease, would trigger an internal flag of some sort...
I would expect that from a real-world bank. In a random MMO, they have no reason to bother unless there is a noticeable problem.
In most MMOs, you can loot gold from dead NPCs, and you can spend gold to buy things from NPCs. You can often sell useless items to NPCs as well. In those cases, there are probably no accounts to send/receive money. The player's balance is simply credited/debited directly for the value of the transaction.
If Manfred found an exploit in the NPC shop protocol that allowed him to process sales for items he didn't actually have, then he could easily generate a lot of in-game money very quickly.
Banks have rigorous controls to detect this sort of thing, but no one is going to develop SOX-level controls on a whim. That level of auditing is seriously burdensome---in terms of both compute and personnel.
Or maybe he sent a bunch of garbage to the server to trick it into thinking he ought to have 18 quintillion gold, and the client was subsequently updated to reflect that value.
I seriously doubt he could sell in-game goods if he couldn't convince the server that he had them.
To be clear, the idea that the game is accepting a gold value directly from the client is laughable. Everyone would be exploiting it if it were that simple. But any MMO is just of series of transactions between the client and the server, and their protocols and daemons can be exploited just like web servers.
If anything, the games are probably more vulnerable because web servers typically use standard protocols and libraries, which are audited and tested by security professionals. I doubt the net code on a random MMO is tested seriously for anything more than latency and reliability.
Major social changes can come from technological advance.
Some changes are more sweeping than others. E.g., the internet was a bigger improvement over the phone compared to the phone vs telegraph.
Even then, the computer was never inherently social because it could not be involved in most social activities. Now, computers, messaging, and the internet are pervasive in every aspect of our lives.
This represents a significant change, and moreover, a change that has no clear analog.
For the generation that was caught on the cusp of this change, this is hugely disruptive. The early socialization by parents, schools, etc is less relevant. There are new risks and rewards out there, and the new generation doesn't have good guidelines on how to handle them---especially if their parents are technologically inept.
In the absence of established social customs, there will be friction regarding appropriate use of the technology.
While I believe that the headline "destroyed a generation" is sensational nonsense, I can readily accept that the mobile revolution made life more complicated for some people. It was always tough heading into the adult years, and it can only be harder when you and your cohort have no models for a significant piece of your social life.
I can understand that the font owners may just be finding out about the infringement, but if you're not monitoring your non-commercial licensees for commercial use in a manner that would bring it to your attention more timely, I'm not sure I can see how a $1.2M claim is justifiable.
The RIAA/MPAA are willing to sue regular people into bankruptcy from sharing a single album/movie because it's the "letter of the law", so they can pay the fines prescribed by law as well.
If HypeForType is asking anything less than the statutory maximum, I am disappointed. Universal et al can reap what they've sown.
Putting hardware on payment plan makes it easier for organizations to upgrade uniformly. Instead of needing $200K to upgrade all of their desktops at once, they can budget ~$8K/month over two years---but still get the hardware when they need it.
This could be a lifesaver for cash-strapped IT organizations, especially for hardware that should be on a tech refresh cycle in the first place.
It is much, much easier to manage a homogenous fleet of desktops than the hodgepodge you'll get from upgrading 1-2 departments every year.
"substantially disrupt terrorists' ability to use the internet in furthering their causes, while also respecting human rights."
Last time I checked, privacy is a human right. This is true in the US, and it is equally true in the UK (until Brexit is completed, at the very least).
If the right to privacy cannot cover something as basic as free speech, what good is it?
You can't legislate perimeter security. IoT devices run on home networks too, and no sane person is going to start arresting people for misconfiguring their wifi routers.
If each device implements basic hardening and gets security updates, we eliminate 99% of the current problems. Since manufacturers will probably ship the same firmware to home users, that unregulated wasteland will get a little better over time.
This bill only applies to equipment that vendors intend to sell to the US government. More sweeping regulation is warranted, in my opinion, but this will probably get most of the benefits without a heavy regulatory footprint---in time, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Each of those sites can do what they like---and if they have rules prohibiting racial discrimination, violence, or hate crimes, then they are behaving in a reasonably consistent fashion.
Nothing is stopping neo-Nazi sites from starting their own funding campaigns. If you're worried about their freedom, remember this: They are perfectly free to collect and distribute funds on their own.
There his a higher principal at place here which is being rather visibly injured.
Not at all.
He will have legal representation. Almost anything is adequate in this case, though. His act was caught on several cameras, so it's not like his lawyer has much to do. Maybe a plea deal.
At most, his lawyer could get plus/minus a few years on a plea in the face of overwhelming evidence. The plates on his car are visible, and his mom and teachers have both said he was alt-right with other signs of radicalization.
A legal defense fund is wasted money. That asshole is going to jail for a long time, no matter how much money is sunk into his defense.
Like it or not, this guy has the legal right to be a racist dick, it doesn't mean we should applaud others who decide to be just as bigoted or intolerant in return.
His "right to be a racist dick" ended when he decided to murder people who happened to be protesting against his beliefs.
Not sure where you live, but the right to be a murderer is not established in American law.
Massively ignorant response.
It's called case law, and it addresses the millions of potential issues that could be interpreted one way or the other under the law.
If Congress has a problem with a Supreme Court ruling, they can simply amend the underlying law.
If it's a constitutional case, then it's a little more complicated---but still possible. Good luck getting an amendment through with today's politics though.
Continuum is an application. It includes power/performance/connectivity/mode variations in presenting its UI.
It would need hooks, and functionally it closer to a custom skin than an app.
Google isn't going to absorb MS code, so this is another platform war.
At this point, I do want an alternative to Android because Google is going bad---but damn, could we please get someone besides Microsoft?
They're a racial group, and race is a protected class.
Unlikely.
Their innate characteristic (race) was not the reason for termination. The behavior (defamation and hate speech) was the reason. There is no protection of hate speech or defamation---quite the opposite, in fact.
Sometimes you can argue that the stated reason is fake, and it's basically an attempt to talk their way around the law. In this case, however, there is an established pattern of behavior---such claims are clearly substantial.
Politically driven DNS denial of service is going to lead to alternate DNS roots.
This made me laugh.
The default root hints of Windows, Linux, Mac, iOS, Android, etc will continue to point to the same root servers that they use today. No matter how unfair you think it is, 99% of the world will use the existing DNS service.
So this "alternative DNS [root]" will have to be configured manually. But we already have decentralized namespaces on networks like Tor, which offer more features than just name resolution.
If anything, an alternative DNS will be part of a network with end-to-end privacy. If not Tor, then something similar.
Prohibiting re-identification for profit, political, etc purposes is an excellent idea. I was actually excited when I saw the headline.
But if they block researchers and disclosure of methods, then how will anyone ever know if re-identification is happening or even possible? How could we assess the risk of re-identification by malicious actors? What can we do to protect our personal privacy, our users, and our networks without detailed technical information?
The proposed law may protect citizens from corporate abuse, assuming it is enforced uniformly. But it also gives government agencies and organized criminals considerable leeway to develop capabilities without public oversight or defensive barriers/mitigations.
The only thing worse than no law is a backdoored law.
It looks like more and more commercial entities are starting to plan for climate change. (Although, of course, the businesses causing it still have a financial incentive to continue.)
If the denialists are right, these plans will end up costing the companies millions or billions of dollars when nothing happens and the climate "hoax" is revealed.
So, be on the watch for those bankruptcies. After all, these businesses planning for climate change are totally doomed, right?
How about doing things humans cannot do?
If a room full of servers can do the task better than a room full of humans, then that's exactly what they have accomplished.
Doing the same task faster, more consistently, and with fewer errors is often more valuable than being able to perform a previously-impossible task. As a side benefit, automating a task may make new applications possible.
A human could perform any of the calculations that modern computers do, if they had the time and desire. However, the automated methods transform or create entire industries---online retailers, digital invoicing, modern banking and investing, etc.
I have no idea what could come out of this particular breakthrough because I don't do deep learning, but you can bet there will be applications coming from the people who buy the equipment.
And this will help deter global warming how?
The alternative is to release heat stored in the chemical bonds of fossils and release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which trap more heat.
Either way, you are releasing/retaining 4.5 GW of energy. The difference with solar is that you avoid a greenhouse effect which traps even more heat.
Remember that this sunlight has already reached the Earth's surface and is therefore part of our normal energy input from the Sun. The 4.5 GW absorbed by the solar array will radiate out eventually, just as it would naturally. The only difference is that it will do some useful work first---and it will radiate out from Europe instead of Africa.
isn't pouring lots of resources into a 30% more efficient petrol engine in 2017 somewhat akin to inventing 'a better buggy whip' in 1888
Not entirely.
There are some heavy-use cases where electric will not be a viable replacement for a long time. E.g., the batteries required for industrial equipment and commercial trucks would be enormous in many cases.
Getting diesel-level efficiency without those nasty diesel emissions is a plus.
That said, I expect this will be a nice improvement until regular passenger vehicles convert to electric. The conversion to electric is somewhat dependent on improvements to battery capacity and charger availability, both of which are outside the direct control of the auto makers (Tesla being the notable exception).
The fact that it ignited such a debate is a pretty tell-tale sign to me that there are still many open points worthy of consideration.
No, this is pretty much nonsense. Outrage has no bearing on the worthiness of an argument---neither pro nor con.
He stood up against several management policies, openly. This is often enough to get fired.
If Google valued ideals such as freedom of speech, it would not have terminated him. But Google is now a typical corporate outfit, where challenging management or causing controversy for the company will earn a death sentence.
I would also criticize his writing for using technical/jargon terms without consideration for the emotional/colloquial impact that those words typically carry. While he was not technically wrong, it is not wise to circulate documents without editing them for the expected audience. I.e., if you are writing to an authoritarian-progressive audience, then you ought to rework sections which might be misconstrued or seen as inflammatory.
He gambled without stacking the deck in his favor---and lost. I can respect his effort, but I do not understand how he could have expected a positive outcome.
Just don't understand what the paranoia is. Surely, somebody in the Defense Department's Cyber vetted the software. Yes?
That's where you run into problems with companies that release dodgy software.
Let's say you vet v1.1 to ensure it has no operational bugs that will affect your mission profile. You also verify that the software is not compromised in any appreciable way.
Eventually, there will be a vulnerability in v1.1, and you will have to upgrade to v1.2---ideally before any new missions are scheduled.
But wait, there's a critical bug in v1.2 so you cannot upgrade. You either accept the risk of operating with the v1.1 vulnerability, you postpone the mission, or you find another way to accomplish the objective.
If a manufacturer routinely releases poor-quality updates or takes too long to fix vulnerabilities, then it is absolutely reasonable to blacklist them.
And in this particular case, where the code is supplied by a company from an adversarial nation, maybe it is reasonable to exclude their products from consideration entirely.
Never understood the whole, "here Internet, take my passwords" mentality anyway.
They don't have your passwords---at least, not in a usable form.
You create a master password for the application. It encrypts your unique, per-site passwords and syncs them. LastPass only sees encrypted data.
Meanwhile, you can create a strong, unique password for every site that you use. You can even use unique names to obstruct doxxing.
The application acts as a local database so that you don't have to remember each and every logon. Your security is a little easier, and they have nothing useful assuming the crypto is solid.
It makes a lot of sense if you have a lot of accounts. Me, though... I don't sign up for enough things to make it worthwhile.
It hurts their ability to grow the economy? Oh, boo hoo, they have to pay more for American workers.
If a handful of American salaries turns your project from a profit to a loss, you are running on razor-thin margins to begin with. Maybe your company should be doing something else instead.
On the other hand, if you're making a decent profit and just want more---get fucked. Public policy doesn't need to hand out special benefits to successful businesses. Right now, the middle class needs a little more help than the shareholders.
Real immigration means coming over here, making a life, and investing long-term in the well-being of this country. The H1B program isn't immigration; it's indentured servitude V2.0
That sounds like he's just using something like Cheat Engine to change the clientside display
If the developer is really stupid, then maybe this is the case.
Or he could be using it to tamper with the client communication in order to exploit the underlying protocols.
Given those two options, I assume the latter. My assumption ascribes the developers a modicum of competence, and therefore imples a greater degree of respect for the attacker's skill.
It should be trivial to write the client to never really even understand transactions, just requests.
I use the term transaction loosely, not necessarily in reference to SQL. I.e., a client submits an action, the server processes that action, and then server returns a status update to the client.
Regardless of the underlying architecture, people have had trouble doing that for applications with real-world consequences. Do you seriously expect higher integrity from the MMO server?
Maybe he just pulled up a debugger to just make a show for a clueless reporter, and that it wasn't the actual hack.
This is possible, but he must be acquiring in-game goods and currency somehow. Legitimate acquisition is usually too slow to make a living, at least in the West.
He refused to do the hack in front of camera, which could indicate he is a fraud. It could also indicate he is very smart, as I wouldn't do that on camera either.
If Fidelity and others are adjusting their valuations based on compensation from the entity that they're evaluating, how is that not fraud?
There is an assumption that a private valuation is based on the fair, rigorous analysis of the company and its place in the market. If they are taking money (profit) to adjust their valuation (deceit), that's stretching into fraud territory. It's almost textbook that deceit + intent + profit = fraud.
Why is anything in a MMO except maybe basic movement done client-side?
Maybe movement and basic actions are all that is supposed to happen client-side.
How is it that a debugger can affect the currency attached to an account?
The client must interact with the server in some way to increment/decrement the currency in certain accounts. The server-side code that controls those interactions is probably riddled with security vulnerabilities. It's almost entirely custom code.
Think of how often Apache/IIS/PHP/etc vulnerabilities are discovered, and then recall that these products have been hammered by security professionals for years. And, most of the time, those professionals disclose their findings to the developer---something which I doubt is happening with MMO developers.
Shouldn't every transaction be started and logged serverside?
Gold is not the basis of all transactions. Spells use resources, crafting professions use resources, and health pools fluctuate.
Lots of things are happening 24/7, and it can be very difficult to determine what needs to be logged.
You'd think an account that suddenly increases in value by several billion, with no account receiving a similar decrease, would trigger an internal flag of some sort...
I would expect that from a real-world bank. In a random MMO, they have no reason to bother unless there is a noticeable problem.
In most MMOs, you can loot gold from dead NPCs, and you can spend gold to buy things from NPCs. You can often sell useless items to NPCs as well. In those cases, there are probably no accounts to send/receive money. The player's balance is simply credited/debited directly for the value of the transaction.
If Manfred found an exploit in the NPC shop protocol that allowed him to process sales for items he didn't actually have, then he could easily generate a lot of in-game money very quickly.
Banks have rigorous controls to detect this sort of thing, but no one is going to develop SOX-level controls on a whim. That level of auditing is seriously burdensome---in terms of both compute and personnel.
Or maybe he sent a bunch of garbage to the server to trick it into thinking he ought to have 18 quintillion gold, and the client was subsequently updated to reflect that value.
I seriously doubt he could sell in-game goods if he couldn't convince the server that he had them.
To be clear, the idea that the game is accepting a gold value directly from the client is laughable. Everyone would be exploiting it if it were that simple. But any MMO is just of series of transactions between the client and the server, and their protocols and daemons can be exploited just like web servers.
If anything, the games are probably more vulnerable because web servers typically use standard protocols and libraries, which are audited and tested by security professionals. I doubt the net code on a random MMO is tested seriously for anything more than latency and reliability.
Major social changes can come from technological advance.
Some changes are more sweeping than others. E.g., the internet was a bigger improvement over the phone compared to the phone vs telegraph.
Even then, the computer was never inherently social because it could not be involved in most social activities. Now, computers, messaging, and the internet are pervasive in every aspect of our lives.
This represents a significant change, and moreover, a change that has no clear analog.
For the generation that was caught on the cusp of this change, this is hugely disruptive. The early socialization by parents, schools, etc is less relevant. There are new risks and rewards out there, and the new generation doesn't have good guidelines on how to handle them---especially if their parents are technologically inept.
In the absence of established social customs, there will be friction regarding appropriate use of the technology.
While I believe that the headline "destroyed a generation" is sensational nonsense, I can readily accept that the mobile revolution made life more complicated for some people. It was always tough heading into the adult years, and it can only be harder when you and your cohort have no models for a significant piece of your social life.
I can understand that the font owners may just be finding out about the infringement, but if you're not monitoring your non-commercial licensees for commercial use in a manner that would bring it to your attention more timely, I'm not sure I can see how a $1.2M claim is justifiable.
The RIAA/MPAA are willing to sue regular people into bankruptcy from sharing a single album/movie because it's the "letter of the law", so they can pay the fines prescribed by law as well.
If HypeForType is asking anything less than the statutory maximum, I am disappointed. Universal et al can reap what they've sown.
Putting hardware on payment plan makes it easier for organizations to upgrade uniformly. Instead of needing $200K to upgrade all of their desktops at once, they can budget ~$8K/month over two years---but still get the hardware when they need it.
This could be a lifesaver for cash-strapped IT organizations, especially for hardware that should be on a tech refresh cycle in the first place.
It is much, much easier to manage a homogenous fleet of desktops than the hodgepodge you'll get from upgrading 1-2 departments every year.
"substantially disrupt terrorists' ability to use the internet in furthering their causes, while also respecting human rights."
Last time I checked, privacy is a human right. This is true in the US, and it is equally true in the UK (until Brexit is completed, at the very least).
If the right to privacy cannot cover something as basic as free speech, what good is it?
You can't legislate perimeter security. IoT devices run on home networks too, and no sane person is going to start arresting people for misconfiguring their wifi routers.
If each device implements basic hardening and gets security updates, we eliminate 99% of the current problems. Since manufacturers will probably ship the same firmware to home users, that unregulated wasteland will get a little better over time.
This bill only applies to equipment that vendors intend to sell to the US government. More sweeping regulation is warranted, in my opinion, but this will probably get most of the benefits without a heavy regulatory footprint---in time, anyway.
Given the impressive hardware specs, I suspect this is largely driver issues.
But there is no way I would pay those asking prices until the performance nudged up.
Maybe these will be decent cards in 2-3 months, but I wouldn't pay for a "maybe".