"We May Be All Alone In the Known Universe" is what has been at least suggested by 100.0% of our observations, since nobody-else is what we keep seeing, over and over again.
If you ever looked up with a telescope, our aloneness was suggested to you too, whether you noticed it or not.;-)
If the tap-turning-off is managed and gradual, no one will die.
Ok, let's hypothesize this. Whose responsibility is this, and why?
And just making sure: you're saying the public has less responsibility than the people who sold them the fuel, right? We could have gradually started using less and less, but it was more important that the vendor had the discipline to make sure they didn't sell us too much each year, correct? And were they also supposed to make sure a competitor didn't come in and fill the remaining demand Should Exxon have resorted to deadly force to prevent BP from selling people too much?
I think you are straining to avoid putting the responsibility where it really belongs. OTOH, if you blame the people who burn the fuel, all the weird shit goes away.
This is one of those things where the actual responsiblity is so spread out that it's just ridiculous to blame the vendor.
How many hundreds of times have YOU personally made the decision to fill your vehicle with fuel? You damn well knew (you did not merely suspect, you the person doing it knew) that it was definitely and inevitably going to pollute the air, with zero chance that it wouldn't pollute. And it was going to happen as a direct consequence of you running your engine after yyou having decided to turn the key.
But no, it's not all on you, because there are hundreds of millions of people, just like you, who were in exactly the same situation and made the same decision that you did. And just like you, those hundreds of millions of people knew for sure, without the slightly doubt or speculation, that their own vehicles were going to definitely going to cause air pollution, and that as a whole, all our vehicles working together were going to pollute in a large, significant way.
And me too. You can blame me for my share. I have filled my tank and driven many times.
Did we do this because we were tricked? Fuck no. We did it because we didn't have a better alternative. Whose fault is that? Reality's fault. It's a shame we don't have teleportation spells, but we don't, so we burn stuff for energy, knowing that it pollutes.
Some people make an effort to stop doing that. That's great. Fuck yeah! You're awesome. And that's the way ahead: high-five the people who make the choice to stop polluting, instead of blaming the people who.. well, no, not the polluters, but whose who sold us the means to pollute, as if We The Burners deserved less blame than they do. If you're going to point your fucking finger, point it at everyone. Point it at the earth itself. Point it at the gods for not giving us teleportation spells.
If you need to blame big oil for something, you might have a better case for pollution that is directly tied to drilling, like for spills, pipelines disrupting habitats, etc. That's totally fair game, because oil can be delivered without fuckups if people try hard enough and are willing to pay enough. (But that's not what this story is about. But I'm giving you an out here, if you need a bad guy and you refuse to accept that we are all the bad guys.)
Watching videos on the web through platforms like Netflix and YouTube, or reading a newspaper's website, counted as internet consumption.
If Netflix isn't considered TV but you're comparing TV with "internet" then their entire comparison is completely meaningless. Netflix is as far in the TV direction as you can get. Yes, behind the scenes it gets onto the TV by using the internet, but that has jack shit with human behavior and preferences, society or anything else. It's basically just a mundane technical detail about how a certain wire is multiplexed.
Hiring one salesperson is cheaper than building all that stuff.
And you can do both in parallel too; if the infrastructure ever does get built, then you can lay off the salesperson when they're no longer needed. But until then...
We talk to them all the time. Every two years, we tell them "Democrats and Republicans, we've decided to re-elect you. Yes, again. Sorry if you were getting tired of "raping" us, but I'm bending over now, so get to it! And you better remember to tell me to squeal like a pig, so that I can maintain the fantasy that I'm being raped and never chose this! Oh, and congratulations on your re-election."
Someone remind me: why should javascript ever be able to know what fonts you have? Why would anyone care?
Maybe browsers don't let you twiddle some config setting to deny font requests, but it could nevertheless be disabled in the browser's code. Is there any reason to even suspect that this might break anything? I wouldn't expect it to break anything. Being able to query fonts sounds like a totally useless feature anyway.
Let's face it, computers in most hands are just another boob tube.
You could say the same thing about desktop computers, yet they're still also PCs.
I think a phone is every bit as much a personal computer as a desktop computer is. They're lame personal computers (e.g. shitty keyboard among other limitations), but hey, they fit in your pocket. Most people basically do the same things with them as they do with desktops.
When I decided to "correct" my age on Facebook, the big question was: should I make myself 15 years older, or 15 years younger?
Apparently, I chose poorly.
The moral here is that whenever you're entering your age into some website, you should always pick either 13 or 21. There are no other ages that any reasonable person would start a profile with.
Yeah I can't afford to hire a lawyer for 5-9 hours every time I install an app
Then you probably shouldn't install the app, don't you think?
That's awful common-sensy. If we replaced "intalling an app" with something a little more dramatic, like "cage diving with great white sharks" or "sky diving in the Himalayas" I think everyone would understand a little better.
"Hey Jim, wanna go diving?" [keeping it vague whether we're talking about in the sky or in the sea]
"Sure, except.. I don't know if I understand all the safety equipment. Seems it would take a while to learn how to use all that, and it looks heavy and inconvenient."
"No problem, just blow off the safety equipment until you have time to figure it out later."
You'd laugh. But if someone agrees to a contract without reading it (and also: runs potentially-hostile unaudited code on their very personal computer), oh no, we don't laugh at that person. No, we pretend they did a sane thing, instead. Surely whatever problems arise as a direct consequence of that conscious choice, are someone else's fault!
There is some boggling thought (or newspeak?) here:
With Netflix and Amazon Prime, Facebook Video and YouTube, it's tempting to imagine that the tech industry destroyed TV.
That's like saying the Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla destroyed cars. No, they're cars. Netflix is TV. Amazon Prime is an upfront amortized delivery charge plus TV. Youtube is TV. They bit into competitors; they didn't do the slightest damage to the TV itself. They became it. Similarly:
Over the last 8 years, all the new, non-TV things -- Facebook, phones, YouTube, Netflix -- have only cut about an hour per day from the dizzying amount of TV that the average household watches.
And among those "non-TV" things, you listed at least two extremely-TV things (Youtube and Netflix) and probably a third (phones, some of which people use as TVs, though I don't know how they can stand it).
The problem is a combination of broken MIME decoding in combination with ignoring an error message from PGP/GnuPG and a really stupid decision to load external content when an email is displayed.
Ok, let's ignore that for right now, and just hypothesize that HTML email doesn't exist. Let's not try to protect against someone who is doing something silly anyway. No external content. I think we still have a problem even in that scenario.
My understanding is that the attacker changed the ciphertext and got predictable plaintext to come out.
That would actually not be a problem. In Plublic-Key Crypto, the attacker can always do that, because anybody can encrypt messages for a recipient.
(I guess I need to read more about how this block exploit works, but I'll talk out my ass anyway because this is the Internet.) The email isn't encrypted with the victim's public key; a session key is encrypted with the victim's public key and the session key is used to encrypt the email.
Let's say I take an encrypted email that you were sent earlier and I prepend a block. I can't get the session key that encrypted the rest of the email; I have to generate a new one and encypt that session key with your public key, and encrypt my prepended block with that session key. Sure, you (the victim) will decrypt that. But at the end of that block, the IV for the next block (the data that we're replaying) is going to be something totally different than it had been in the original message. The rest of the message should decrypt to garbage. Yet it sounds like someone figured out how to make that not happen. That's what I'm trying to understand.
What about the belief that the Species must "get off this rock", despite the overwhelming evidence that this "rock" is the only place for us?
"Despite?" There's no contradiction here; it's just a difficult situation. It's a very hard problem to solve, and failing to solve it is also seen as leading to other hard problems.
Slashdot Mirror
"We May Be All Alone In the Known Universe" is what has been at least suggested by 100.0% of our observations, since nobody-else is what we keep seeing, over and over again.
If you ever looked up with a telescope, our aloneness was suggested to you too, whether you noticed it or not. ;-)
Ok, let's hypothesize this. Whose responsibility is this, and why?
And just making sure: you're saying the public has less responsibility than the people who sold them the fuel, right? We could have gradually started using less and less, but it was more important that the vendor had the discipline to make sure they didn't sell us too much each year, correct? And were they also supposed to make sure a competitor didn't come in and fill the remaining demand Should Exxon have resorted to deadly force to prevent BP from selling people too much?
I think you are straining to avoid putting the responsibility where it really belongs. OTOH, if you blame the people who burn the fuel, all the weird shit goes away.
Ok, so sue the people who bought and burned the fuel.
(No, I don't own any oil stock.)
This is one of those things where the actual responsiblity is so spread out that it's just ridiculous to blame the vendor.
How many hundreds of times have YOU personally made the decision to fill your vehicle with fuel? You damn well knew (you did not merely suspect, you the person doing it knew) that it was definitely and inevitably going to pollute the air, with zero chance that it wouldn't pollute. And it was going to happen as a direct consequence of you running your engine after yyou having decided to turn the key.
But no, it's not all on you, because there are hundreds of millions of people, just like you, who were in exactly the same situation and made the same decision that you did. And just like you, those hundreds of millions of people knew for sure, without the slightly doubt or speculation, that their own vehicles were going to definitely going to cause air pollution, and that as a whole, all our vehicles working together were going to pollute in a large, significant way.
And me too. You can blame me for my share. I have filled my tank and driven many times.
Did we do this because we were tricked? Fuck no. We did it because we didn't have a better alternative. Whose fault is that? Reality's fault. It's a shame we don't have teleportation spells, but we don't, so we burn stuff for energy, knowing that it pollutes.
Some people make an effort to stop doing that. That's great. Fuck yeah! You're awesome. And that's the way ahead: high-five the people who make the choice to stop polluting, instead of blaming the people who .. well, no, not the polluters, but whose who sold us the means to pollute, as if We The Burners deserved less blame than they do. If you're going to point your fucking finger, point it at everyone. Point it at the earth itself. Point it at the gods for not giving us teleportation spells.
If you need to blame big oil for something, you might have a better case for pollution that is directly tied to drilling, like for spills, pipelines disrupting habitats, etc. That's totally fair game, because oil can be delivered without fuckups if people try hard enough and are willing to pay enough. (But that's not what this story is about. But I'm giving you an out here, if you need a bad guy and you refuse to accept that we are all the bad guys.)
If Netflix isn't considered TV but you're comparing TV with "internet" then their entire comparison is completely meaningless. Netflix is as far in the TV direction as you can get. Yes, behind the scenes it gets onto the TV by using the internet, but that has jack shit with human behavior and preferences, society or anything else. It's basically just a mundane technical detail about how a certain wire is multiplexed.
Hiring one salesperson is cheaper than building all that stuff.
And you can do both in parallel too; if the infrastructure ever does get built, then you can lay off the salesperson when they're no longer needed. But until then...
We talk to them all the time. Every two years, we tell them "Democrats and Republicans, we've decided to re-elect you. Yes, again. Sorry if you were getting tired of "raping" us, but I'm bending over now, so get to it! And you better remember to tell me to squeal like a pig, so that I can maintain the fantasy that I'm being raped and never chose this! Oh, and congratulations on your re-election."
Sure, if you're naive enough to think the NSA doesn't already have backdoors in all the paper.
Huh? Why would that start happening?
What if I'm illegible?
I hear things. That's what people are saying.
Someone remind me: why should javascript ever be able to know what fonts you have? Why would anyone care?
Maybe browsers don't let you twiddle some config setting to deny font requests, but it could nevertheless be disabled in the browser's code. Is there any reason to even suspect that this might break anything? I wouldn't expect it to break anything. Being able to query fonts sounds like a totally useless feature anyway.
The "general public" is to whom Intel wants to sell things, because there's a thousand of them for every gamer who knows what a PCIe lane is.
You could say the same thing about desktop computers, yet they're still also PCs.
I think a phone is every bit as much a personal computer as a desktop computer is. They're lame personal computers (e.g. shitty keyboard among other limitations), but hey, they fit in your pocket. Most people basically do the same things with them as they do with desktops.
When I decided to "correct" my age on Facebook, the big question was: should I make myself 15 years older, or 15 years younger?
Apparently, I chose poorly.
The moral here is that whenever you're entering your age into some website, you should always pick either 13 or 21. There are no other ages that any reasonable person would start a profile with.
That's awful common-sensy. If we replaced "intalling an app" with something a little more dramatic, like "cage diving with great white sharks" or "sky diving in the Himalayas" I think everyone would understand a little better.
"Hey Jim, wanna go diving?" [keeping it vague whether we're talking about in the sky or in the sea]
"Sure, except .. I don't know if I understand all the safety equipment. Seems it would take a while to learn how to use all that, and it looks heavy and inconvenient."
"No problem, just blow off the safety equipment until you have time to figure it out later."
You'd laugh. But if someone agrees to a contract without reading it (and also: runs potentially-hostile unaudited code on their very personal computer), oh no, we don't laugh at that person. No, we pretend they did a sane thing, instead. Surely whatever problems arise as a direct consequence of that conscious choice, are someone else's fault!
I thought all license plates were already digital, encoded in base 36 or something close to that.
Meanwhile, in today's news...
There is some boggling thought (or newspeak?) here:
That's like saying the Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla destroyed cars. No, they're cars. Netflix is TV. Amazon Prime is an upfront amortized delivery charge plus TV. Youtube is TV. They bit into competitors; they didn't do the slightest damage to the TV itself. They became it. Similarly:
And among those "non-TV" things, you listed at least two extremely-TV things (Youtube and Netflix) and probably a third (phones, some of which people use as TVs, though I don't know how they can stand it).
You're not even wrong; you don't make sense.
What's wrong with being disrespectful?
Ok, let's ignore that for right now, and just hypothesize that HTML email doesn't exist. Let's not try to protect against someone who is doing something silly anyway. No external content. I think we still have a problem even in that scenario.
(I guess I need to read more about how this block exploit works, but I'll talk out my ass anyway because this is the Internet.) The email isn't encrypted with the victim's public key; a session key is encrypted with the victim's public key and the session key is used to encrypt the email.
Let's say I take an encrypted email that you were sent earlier and I prepend a block. I can't get the session key that encrypted the rest of the email; I have to generate a new one and encypt that session key with your public key, and encrypt my prepended block with that session key. Sure, you (the victim) will decrypt that. But at the end of that block, the IV for the next block (the data that we're replaying) is going to be something totally different than it had been in the original message. The rest of the message should decrypt to garbage. Yet it sounds like someone figured out how to make that not happen. That's what I'm trying to understand.
Wait a minute. My understanding is that the attacker changed the ciphertext and got predictable plaintext to come out. I didn't expect that.
Fuck HTML email, but it sounds like we still have a problem.
Actually, it looks like BeoutQ provides their own service to their customers. The pirate users are hitting BeoutQ's servers, not the original servers.
It can't be excluded that monkeys will fly out of my butt.
"Despite?" There's no contradiction here; it's just a difficult situation. It's a very hard problem to solve, and failing to solve it is also seen as leading to other hard problems.