But more to the point, when the general consensus even here at Slashdot is that the primary duty of any shareholder owned company is to maximize profits, should this be any surprise?
That is a lie.
Perhaps, but it's often pontificated here in exactly that way.
It's all down to money, if you want to sell in that country you have to abide by their laws.
And that's the way it is in most countries.
But more to the point, when the general consensus even here at Slashdot is that the primary duty of any shareholder owned company is to maximize profits, should this be any surprise?
As long as corporate law does not define some non-abstract requirement to be beneficial to society - and what does that mean, anyway? To me one thing, to the Chinese, another - than what is done with one's products is of no consequence.
Should I get anti-virus software that's pwned by Russia, or anti-virus software that's pwned by the US?
For the individual, for personal use, it probably doesn't matter. And if you're running a recent version of Windows, you should not install Third Party virus software anyway, as Windows Defender is more than adequate.
What we are talking about here is specificallyU.S. Government use of Kaspersky Bloat Ware, and in that context, they should definitely worry that Kaspersky is beholden to the Russian government as we know that governments including our own -...caugh...SNOWDEN...caugh... - do in fact infect anti-virus tools with weaknesses and backdoors and such. Seriously, if we're doing it - and you can be sure we are - the Russians certainly are doing it.
And really, the offer of a code inspection is meaningless. There is just too much potential for professional hackers of the highest order - and Russian hackers are some of the smartest in the world - to fold in extremely well hidden and ingenuitive code in the main code-base, definition updates, software updates, what have you. And well I'm sure the initial code inspection would turn up nothing but rock-sold bloatware, will our "guard" drop for future softwear updates?
Just too many variables to be confidant about to even consider Kaspersky products for U.S. Government use.
"The agency's statement suggested a vulnerability exists in Kaspersky that could give the Russian government backdoor access to the systems it protects, though they offered no explanation or evidence of it," reports the Washington Post. Kaspersky, of course, denies this, offering their source code up for U.S. Government review... "Three current and former defense contractors told The Post that they knew of no specific warnings circulated about Kaspersky in recent years, but it has become an unwritten rule at the Pentagon not to include Kaspersky as a potential vendor on new projects."
I'm not a security expert, but I don't know that this would necessarily sooth me. For example, perhaps the "backdoor" is devilishly obscured. Or, perhaps future exploits of a particularly tricky and secret nature will mysteriously not be added to whatever library Kaspersky's stuff uses. And then there is the issue of regular software updates, does the US government have to check the code with a fine tooth comb every time - this alone would be problematic.
I mean, come on! To imagine that the Russians would not at least TRY to leverage the Kaspersky install base is ignorant.
Oh please. Robert Mueller investigation into Trump is staffed with people whom have had direct campaigning with the Clintons.
In a country with for all practical purposes only two parties, you sided with one or the other, no getting around it.
But does it matter? If they find bonafide "wrong-doing", it bonafide "wrong-doing" no matter who discovers it. And, a biased Libertard Snowflake Demobrat is more likely to uncover the dirt both because they are more motivated to find something, and it has been established that Trump's supporters at the high level of Dirt Investigators are predisposed to miraculously find nothing at all.
...take a step back from the business after its acquisition of the Basis fitness watch didn't pan out as expected...
Many speculators like the VC types thought this was going to be HUGE, but really, it's turned out to be more or less a "fad" and a niche market where there just isn't a market for more than one or two serious players.
The public-facing srvers I'm reponsible for are port-scanned thousends of times a day in addition to the SSH access attempts, but these are all so common that only a fool falls victim to this sort of thing, the basic protections are fairly elementary and catch most if not all such common garbage.
If the story source is pay-walled (and here's an alturnative source), why refer and list the pay-walled link at all? Why not just use the alturnative source as the primary source?
Wait, there is no connection between spaces, tabs, and how much I make? But I just spent days going through all my code and replacing and reformatting with spaces. Please don't tell me I have to be worried about curly braces.
For extra money, you can get windmill electrons instead of normal electrons! This is totally not an accounting gimmick that means that you get the same electrons anyway, because the grid kind of, well, mixes and matches.
You're missing the point. Also, Microsoft is in the business of making money, so if the cost didn't work for their accountants, they wouldn't do it because the momentary Public Relations value is, well, momentary.
And, no one thinks they are getting "different" electrons. Your statement is meaningless blather about nothing.
No only that, but PSE is going to be stuck with the clean-up costs of the sites containing the coal-fired energy generation plants.
There is this:
The agreement calls for Microsoft to pay a $23.6âmillion transition fee to PSE, which the utility will pass on to its Western Washington customers.
A "transition fee"... What does this mean? They have to pay not use the utility? I'm not saying the fee is bad, just that the story doesn't say what this fee is for. Reading the actual agreement suggests that the costs of the Montana clean-up is still an open issue and will be litigated.
Now, Microsoft "dislike" aside, and for the sake of argument let's suppose it was some other big customer, why should they pay anything for the clean-up and shut-down of the Montana coal plant? Did Microsoft (or any other big customer) have some powerful say in the construction of this plant? A choice not to support it's use? Is there some compelling reason why Microsoft (or any other customer) should pay for Puget Sound Energy's ill-advised reliance on an energy resource that was almost certainly environmentally questionable when the plant was built?
Synonyms include: "finish with" a relationship, which may or may not include all components of the relationship. So there would be several possibilities including Microsoft setting up a giant wind farm or tons of solar on their Redmond campus, or simply (as is the case) not buying energy from the local utility while still using the infrastructure.
But this raises a question: The huge one time payment not withstanding, it seems to me that even though they will purchase their energy from some other source, they still use the utility's wires, so there should be some continuing expense for the use of that infrastructure, shouldn't there be? I haven't read anything about that.
There is no mention of "cord cutting" in TFA. The power company will just route "cleaner energy" to MS through the existing network.
You're being pedantic.
"Cutting the cord" is a phrase that means they will not be buying energy from the utility, which comes from a number of sources including coal and other "unsustainable" and dirty sources. Instead they will contract and buy from "green" sources that will then me routed into the pool of power that the utility then delivers to MS.
I am not questioning you opinions on systemd, particularly since my father, a retired CE and lifelong *nix user dislikes it with a passion. But I'm way to ignorant of the dirty mechanics and politics of Linux to understand how, with so many presumably knowledgeable folks who dislike systemd, it became a standard in the more popular distros. Does it solve some vexing issue for the maintainers of these distros? What do these people find so compelling as to make such a fundamental change?
I am not letting a corporation install bugging devices in my home, and I am sure as hell not going to pay for the privilege.
A good point that has, of course, been brought up many times. Given what we know from Snowden, there can be no question that the Three Letter Agencies are all over this.
Yes, of course they are being used as a pawn. But that doesn't mean they aren't being used to spy on their customers, in fact it makes it all the more likly.
Astonishing and unheard of discovery! Free app we bundled app sucks! We regret it! To atone for this faux pas, please accept this updated version that also sucks but maybe not quite as much or perhaps in different ways!
They should also seize personal assets from the CEO, high likelihood he is skating with millions of dollars made from this illegal behaviour over the past 5-years.
IANAL, but this is why both sleaze-bags and legit people alike incorporate, to avoid personal exposure. So unless there was calculated fraud that lead to actual losses, my *guess* (again, IANAL) is that creditors and wronged folks alike are SOL except for the lawyers perhaps, Everyone else will get a cupon for $1 off a Whopper at your choice of locations.
Slashdot Mirror
But more to the point, when the general consensus even here at Slashdot is that the primary duty of any shareholder owned company is to maximize profits, should this be any surprise?
That is a lie.
Perhaps, but it's often pontificated here in exactly that way.
It's all down to money, if you want to sell in that country you have to abide by their laws.
And that's the way it is in most countries.
But more to the point, when the general consensus even here at Slashdot is that the primary duty of any shareholder owned company is to maximize profits, should this be any surprise?
As long as corporate law does not define some non-abstract requirement to be beneficial to society - and what does that mean, anyway? To me one thing, to the Chinese, another - than what is done with one's products is of no consequence.
Zyklon B, anyone?
No, the "kill switch" idea is as silly as the "smart gun" idea, thieves will not give a shit and hackers will defeat the kill switches anyway.
Yet another idea from someone who doesn't understand the technology.
Should I get anti-virus software that's pwned by Russia, or anti-virus software that's pwned by the US?
For the individual, for personal use, it probably doesn't matter. And if you're running a recent version of Windows, you should not install Third Party virus software anyway, as Windows Defender is more than adequate.
What we are talking about here is specifically U.S. Government use of Kaspersky Bloat Ware, and in that context, they should definitely worry that Kaspersky is beholden to the Russian government as we know that governments including our own - ...caugh...SNOWDEN...caugh... - do in fact infect anti-virus tools with weaknesses and backdoors and such. Seriously, if we're doing it - and you can be sure we are - the Russians certainly are doing it.
And really, the offer of a code inspection is meaningless. There is just too much potential for professional hackers of the highest order - and Russian hackers are some of the smartest in the world - to fold in extremely well hidden and ingenuitive code in the main code-base, definition updates, software updates, what have you. And well I'm sure the initial code inspection would turn up nothing but rock-sold bloatware, will our "guard" drop for future softwear updates?
Just too many variables to be confidant about to even consider Kaspersky products for U.S. Government use.
When they are making bank on their desktop and Server CPUs the way they are, the last thing they need is a bunch of snot-nosed kids.
Instead, they are focusing their resources on staving-off the coming AMD CPU wave...
HELLO! 1990 is calling!
No AV vendor will allow known government malware (US, Chinese, Russian, etc.) through.
http://www.reuters.com/article...
"The agency's statement suggested a vulnerability exists in Kaspersky that could give the Russian government backdoor access to the systems it protects, though they offered no explanation or evidence of it," reports the Washington Post. Kaspersky, of course, denies this, offering their source code up for U.S. Government review... "Three current and former defense contractors told The Post that they knew of no specific warnings circulated about Kaspersky in recent years, but it has become an unwritten rule at the Pentagon not to include Kaspersky as a potential vendor on new projects."
I'm not a security expert, but I don't know that this would necessarily sooth me. For example, perhaps the "backdoor" is devilishly obscured. Or, perhaps future exploits of a particularly tricky and secret nature will mysteriously not be added to whatever library Kaspersky's stuff uses. And then there is the issue of regular software updates, does the US government have to check the code with a fine tooth comb every time - this alone would be problematic.
I mean, come on! To imagine that the Russians would not at least TRY to leverage the Kaspersky install base is ignorant.
The possibility that Kapersky Lab is beholden to the Russian government is real.
Yes, yes, I know the same can be said for American based "security" companies, but it's more likly they are beholden to American spy agencies.
I'm going to predict a lot of people here saying "I would never work such a place" or "I would never sign such an agreement" ...
Let me just say bull shit, when you need a job you will work such a place and sign such an agreement.
But I wouldn't really care because like a lot of things, for all practical purposes, these types of agreements are unenforceable.
Oh please. Robert Mueller investigation into Trump is staffed with people whom have had direct campaigning with the Clintons.
In a country with for all practical purposes only two parties, you sided with one or the other, no getting around it.
But does it matter? If they find bonafide "wrong-doing", it bonafide "wrong-doing" no matter who discovers it. And, a biased Libertard Snowflake Demobrat is more likely to uncover the dirt both because they are more motivated to find something, and it has been established that Trump's supporters at the high level of Dirt Investigators are predisposed to miraculously find nothing at all.
...take a step back from the business after its acquisition of the Basis fitness watch didn't pan out as expected...
Many speculators like the VC types thought this was going to be HUGE, but really, it's turned out to be more or less a "fad" and a niche market where there just isn't a market for more than one or two serious players.
The public-facing srvers I'm reponsible for are port-scanned thousends of times a day in addition to the SSH access attempts, but these are all so common that only a fool falls victim to this sort of thing, the basic protections are fairly elementary and catch most if not all such common garbage.
If the story source is pay-walled (and here's an alturnative source), why refer and list the pay-walled link at all? Why not just use the alturnative source as the primary source?
Whoosh. Look at the guy's name.
So?
Wait, there is no connection between spaces, tabs, and how much I make? But I just spent days going through all my code and replacing and reformatting with spaces. Please don't tell me I have to be worried about curly braces.
For extra money, you can get windmill electrons instead of normal electrons! This is totally not an accounting gimmick that means that you get the same electrons anyway, because the grid kind of, well, mixes and matches.
You're missing the point. Also, Microsoft is in the business of making money, so if the cost didn't work for their accountants, they wouldn't do it because the momentary Public Relations value is, well, momentary.
And, no one thinks they are getting "different" electrons. Your statement is meaningless blather about nothing.
No only that, but PSE is going to be stuck with the clean-up costs of the sites containing the coal-fired energy generation plants.
There is this:
The agreement calls for Microsoft to pay a $23.6âmillion transition fee to PSE, which the utility will pass on to its Western Washington customers.
A "transition fee"... What does this mean? They have to pay not use the utility? I'm not saying the fee is bad, just that the story doesn't say what this fee is for. Reading the actual agreement suggests that the costs of the Montana clean-up is still an open issue and will be litigated.
Now, Microsoft "dislike" aside, and for the sake of argument let's suppose it was some other big customer, why should they pay anything for the clean-up and shut-down of the Montana coal plant? Did Microsoft (or any other big customer) have some powerful say in the construction of this plant? A choice not to support it's use? Is there some compelling reason why Microsoft (or any other customer) should pay for Puget Sound Energy's ill-advised reliance on an energy resource that was almost certainly environmentally questionable when the plant was built?
Maybe it's just me indeed. But, for me:
"cutting the cord" != having your provider setup new gateways
Yes and no...
to end your connection with someone, OR to stop depending on their support
http://www.macmillandictionary...
Synonyms include: "finish with" a relationship, which may or may not include all components of the relationship. So there would be several possibilities including Microsoft setting up a giant wind farm or tons of solar on their Redmond campus, or simply (as is the case) not buying energy from the local utility while still using the infrastructure.
But this raises a question: The huge one time payment not withstanding, it seems to me that even though they will purchase their energy from some other source, they still use the utility's wires, so there should be some continuing expense for the use of that infrastructure, shouldn't there be? I haven't read anything about that.
There is no mention of "cord cutting" in TFA. The power company will just route "cleaner energy" to MS through the existing network.
You're being pedantic.
"Cutting the cord" is a phrase that means they will not be buying energy from the utility, which comes from a number of sources including coal and other "unsustainable" and dirty sources. Instead they will contract and buy from "green" sources that will then me routed into the pool of power that the utility then delivers to MS.
Seriously, think it through. :)
I am not questioning you opinions on systemd, particularly since my father, a retired CE and lifelong *nix user dislikes it with a passion. But I'm way to ignorant of the dirty mechanics and politics of Linux to understand how, with so many presumably knowledgeable folks who dislike systemd, it became a standard in the more popular distros. Does it solve some vexing issue for the maintainers of these distros? What do these people find so compelling as to make such a fundamental change?
Anti-homosexual discrimination in employment is perfectly legal in most places, including most of the USA. So, no, it isn't different.
No.
I am not letting a corporation install bugging devices in my home, and I am sure as hell not going to pay for the privilege.
A good point that has, of course, been brought up many times. Given what we know from Snowden, there can be no question that the Three Letter Agencies are all over this.
Yes, of course they are being used as a pawn. But that doesn't mean they aren't being used to spy on their customers, in fact it makes it all the more likly.
Astonishing and unheard of discovery! Free app we bundled app sucks! We regret it! To atone for this faux pas, please accept this updated version that also sucks but maybe not quite as much or perhaps in different ways!
They should also seize personal assets from the CEO, high likelihood he is skating with millions of dollars made from this illegal behaviour over the past 5-years.
IANAL, but this is why both sleaze-bags and legit people alike incorporate, to avoid personal exposure. So unless there was calculated fraud that lead to actual losses, my *guess* (again, IANAL) is that creditors and wronged folks alike are SOL except for the lawyers perhaps, Everyone else will get a cupon for $1 off a Whopper at your choice of locations.