Surfers in Denver can't compete either, and neither can skiers in Phoenix!
Another place you can't compete as a gamer is *most places in the United States*. In order to compete in a latency-relevant game online, you pretty much need to be in one of several major metropolitan areas. Because those areas are population dense, they serve plenty of people. But it doesn't take anyone a very far car trip to get somewhere that you can end up with no broadband.
The real reason Hawai'i, with pretty high population per land, is screwed, is because the servers are never really in Hawai'i either. But try to play competitive games with folks in Europe, or Asia- either you end up with a crappy ping, or they do. If a server set is in Chicago, then it effectively serves most of the US and Canada, but it won't help Tokyo or Berlin.
It's not particularly surprising, and I doubt that anything will change until the infrastructure does. We've already seen a lot of gaming get redesigned around the internet's latency (plenty of instant-fire guns, plenty of server-side driven movements of environment, not many projectile weapons that are barely dodgeable or physics effects that players originate and share), favoring the types of games that can be played over tens of milliseconds instead of milliseconds or less, and the types of games that require limited data from the server to the client. The semi-famous article about X-Wing versus TIE Fighter being designed for a reasonably less capable internet ( http://www.gamasutra.com/view/... ) might have aged a bit on its tech requirements, but remains relevant when pointing out how the internet already fundamentally limits games.
You are thinking Intel's Management Engine, normally called ME. I didn't want to play that game, but I wasn't willing to switch to ARM to avoid playing that game.
The AMD version is the Platform Security Processor (PSP, not to be confused with Sony's portable offering).
AMD is on record as considering looking at the PSP and making it optional or open. Intel lurves their ME and has no plans to do anything with it except continue to make it mandatory. All x86 processors for at least the last half-decade have it built in. There are some few motherboards where the ME can be disabled or at least crippled, assuming you have access to some hardware bullshit and plenty of spare time. There may be equivalents on AMD but I think it is unlikely- Intel chips are happy to boot up for half an hour, AMD chips won't even release cores from reset until their One Ring has control, and has in the darkness bound them. http://hackaday.com/2016/11/28...
If you are concerned about this- and you personally are- I suggest a router not made by any of the major manufactures (so some of them), and not running x86 (so, almost all of the remaining ones) set to default-deny incoming junk (all of them). I also suggest making sure that your actual network connection is not one that is glued to the motherboard, or is generally considered incompatible in some way (like a pci-e card), as that will minimize the likelihood that the ME/PSP can actually use the network without your help. I assume that any theoretically extant ME/PSP backdoor would most likely rely on an actual packet of some sort being delivered to the PC, as other methods (scan RAM for fixed value, watch for magic opcode, etc) would have both false positive possibility and not be as reliable against whatever targets would be tasty for a theoretical backdoor.
But frankly, until the PSP or ME can be safely disabled, you aren't going to get away from this "paranoid" concern completely on modern x86.
You have to read down just a bit, and then you see:
"Jaczek said that people in the program will be randomly contacted from each region's low-income population and invited to apply."
Basic income, in any iteration I've seen seriously applied, isn't just for poor people. Money for poor people is fucking welfare. We have that already. Welfare is the "provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for citizens WITHOUT CURRENT MEANS to support basic needs" (capsemphasis mine).
The idea of basic income is that everyone gets it baseline, no drama, no forms, no qualifications, with the obvious caveat that this money has to come from somewhere, so one assumes a relatively large increase in income tax. The supposed benefits and risks of this are numerous, but what is definitely known is that to actually test this, you need to not JUST be giving the money to poor people. The big question about basic income is, what effects will it have on society. You can make economic models all day long, the whole point about doing a test is to figure this out.
You want to know: are people less motivated to work? Are they healthier? Are they happier? What does it do to families? (the model being tested, where two single people living together get 2*17,000 = 34,000 a year, while if they marry they get 24,000 a year, has a pretty obvious and glaring bias as regards marriage)... and these questions aren't just relevant for poor people. They are relevant for middle class, and rich people.
All of these tests seem to be set up to give a certain set of results. They are carefully crafted to avoid asking the questions that need to be asked. I really don't know what to think about this.
Asus Mobo Intel CPU Nvidia GPU WD HDD Samsung SSD Kingston RAM EVGA Power Supply Corsair case
No company in history, alone, could have matched that set of stuff. No solo company could have made their own motherboard, CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, and SSD. I needed all those parts though.
Who is closest on this list? Intel makes a motherboard, and they will probably again make RAM- that's the closest to the full package, but they didn't have a motherboard that would do what I wanted. You could in theory make a whole machine based around nvidia GPUs. It would be truly shitty at some tasks, but just fine at others. But they aren't really close to doing that. Samsung could provide stand-in components for many of these parts if they wanted. Would a Samsung CPU be better than an Intel or an AMD? It seems pretty dicey.
The fact that these companies have specialized and settled on standards to any degree is massive progress. The fact that I had to act as my own system integrator to get everything I wanted is annoying, but not the end of the world. The idea that System 76 is going to be working on system integration is a good thing, and the fact that we don't have to rely on Intel CPUs that only fit in Intel made motherboards that only are willing to use Intel RAM and have a proprietary code on their wiring to talk to the Intel proprietary SSD, is a GREAT thing.
> They also never advertised that it would work on all future computer hardware
Conveniently, I actually have the Windows 7 box and disc that I purchased right in front of me! The top requirement is: "1 GHz or faster 32 bit (x86) or 64 bit (x64) processor".
But even if I didn't have a stupid box, and even if I had one of the licenses that is sold with physical hardware like some kind of savage, failing to issue SECURITY UPDATES to processors that are FULLY BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE is totally ludicrous, and completely unprecedented in industry. When Intel releases a new processor, no one asks "will it be backwards compatible with Microsoft Word?", because ensuring that is the case is ENTIRE POINT of Intel's business model. There's NO justification for Microsoft's actions where it polls the processor and tries to search for an exact match: in fact, I bet a few motherboard guys right now are poking around with a firmware setting just in case this trend takes off, to force a chip to identify as another chip. The CPUID instruction isn't implemented by Intel and AMD for the purpose of breaking the ability of customers to upgrade, nor does it exist to help Microsoft's bottom line. It's unprecedented, irrational, and unreasonable, and it shits on everyone else in tech, from the kid opening up a new laptop as a gift to the CEO of Intel.
> Microsoft's job is to make money for their shareholders
That's every company's job, but notice how plenty of them manage to do that without taking actions that are "just barely legal" or non-monopolist in nature.
Also, none of the OSes you describe are "ancient" or "obsolete". Both of them are supported right now. Both of them are generally superior than Windows 10 for a variety of tasks.
There's no apologizing for Microsoft here. This is a dick move, and just on the edge of what is allowed. At the end of the day, a lot more people need to be punishing Microsoft instead of feebly trying to apologize for them. Sadly, Windows users appear to be willing to put up with anything, because the cost of switching to anything else can be so unreasonable. Even this overtly consumer-hostile set of policies has only pushed Apple percent by a few, and while it has nearly doubled Linux usage, it is still a drop in the bucket as a Windows desktop replacement.
Think of your PIN. Your phone PIN. Make the motion with your hands. You go to unlock your phone, you type your PIN. Think of your PIN. Think of your PIN. Think of your PIN. This doesn't violate any amendments because our judge sez so. Think of your PIN. Think of your PIN.
You can't name things after astronomical objects, because those are offensive, because Mars is offensive (apparently lol). Anything named after something religious or mythological offends an atheist. Coffee can't be used because some religions are offended by coffee. Scientist names are sexist because most of them are men, and they even tried that card to claim numbers are offensive, but that one apparently didn't fly.
So when everyone gets together to name something, they eventually just decide that Things are simply not nameable, lest someone be offended. If instead, some asshole was in charge of naming, it would just be named GloryPork and anyone who wanted to bitch about it would have their complaints circular filed. There are benefits to just some asshole in charge.
> The future is using javascript and rendering to HTML. Rust, go, python, and all the other important languages can be compiled into javascript which runs everywhere
I 3 this troll. Please make a slashdotmeme outta this. This is app-guy levels of amusing. Which isn't saying much, but it is saying something.
Like, philosophically? I guess because if there aren't vile antagonists, humans would have little to strive against.
Do you mean, practically? Presumably because they think it lines up with their business model, and they have no intention of serving their paying customers if they can get away with not doing that thing.
Or do you mean, why does THIS particular thing exemplify their scumbaggery? Well, that should be obvious: if you have a Windows 7 license, nothing on that box states or implies that the software will be broken by design on Intel chips past a certain date, for no reason except to invalidate the value of your purchase.
> Are you going to pay them extra to keep supporting Win7 on new hardware like that?
If you bought a Windows license, you already did. Nothing about it says "works with these exact chips: beyond that, we can guarantee nothing".
Much more relevantly, testing security and even functional patches on chips which jump through every hoop in the universe to be backwards binary compatible with THE NINETEEN EIGHTIES is no great effort. Not supporting OLD hardware is reasonable for OSes, assuming they don't screw over too many people. Not supporting NEW chips which are backwards compatible is UNPRECEDENTED in the industry. It's just a stupid cash grab to try to force everyone onto that supernaturally awful Windows 10.
No, and they can't really get your search information as a result. HOWEVER, they do get to see every IP address you contact, when you contact, how long you contact for, how much data is passed, and in what direction. VPN reduces this fine tuned envelope information to "when your LAN is passing data, and how much", leaving out the very relevant "...and to whom" part.
Also note that DNS queries are almost always in plaintext as well, though that seems to be slowly changing, so A.B.C.D will also be understood to be whatever.com.
Under conditions Apple wasn't able to nerf the speed from, sure. The Qualcomm chips had to be dramatically underutilized in order for the Intel to look competitive.
> , but why do you think CA couldn't secede because it is in debt?
His point is that they'd be fucked, not because of debt, but because they operate at a loss.
I don't know if that's actually true though, especially not when counting that they would have control over taxation (in such a situation, a California company would owe as much money to the federal government of the 49 states of the USA as it would to the government of Botswana). Even in theory, it's a totally bonkers situation because you wouldn't predict any of the second order effects correctly (which companies stay, which leave, which groups become violent, etc). In practice it is well beyond lunacy: the punishment for secession is quite apparently immediate reconquest, as determined by the civil war.
> Is there evidence supporting the claim that the loss of the verified mark was related to their opinions and not an ambiguity in who was actually posting
Milo, of course, went on to be completely banned by twitter at a later time. But there was ABSOLUTELY no question than he was who he said he was: there was no ambiguity. So there's your "evidence supporting the claim". Because he was later banned, it definitely fits the idea that they unverified him as a may of adding meaning to the check mark of "this check mark denotes twitter approves of this", and therefore removing the check mark is a statement of political disagreement.
So this means that the blue mark removal was being received by both left and right as being an editorial statement about the person, and not a "guaranteed to be the person" mark.
I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you.
Seriously though, you should have.
A couple years ago Twitter began revoking blue check marks from the trolly right wingers. Prior to this, the blue check mark just meant "this person is who they purport to be" with a twinge of "...and is important enough that we verified that fact". When they started revoking blue check marks, it added a new piece to it, "...and we editorially support what they say, in some fashion, because if we did not, we would have revoke their check mark".
At this point, it was fully politicized, but it was not discussed that widely. But once Twitter had made this editorial decision to "demote" those whose views they disliked, but had broken no terms of service, the next logical question would be to select the second-most-trolly right winger and ask, well ok, why do THEY have a blue check still? Do you guys agree with them?
This double meaning, and the twitter management wading into political debate, really hurts trust in their system*. There's also accusations of them handling political tweets that they disagree with differently- pushing them out to users at different times, claiming a tweet isn't found, etc. Unlike the blue check thing, which is very obviously top down policy, this one may just be a conspiracy theory (and maybe in fact just due to the fact that twitter's infrastructure is duct tape apparently). However, it's a lot more plausible than it was before they started doing this.
Another semi-conspiracy is that the anti-Trump tweets that respond to every Trump tweet and are always listed at the top are, in some sense, "rigged". This one also can't be shown to be true, but again, is more plausible given the provable side twitter has taken.
Basically, twitter not only has an agenda, but this has resulted in a bunch of claims that are plausible instead of laughable.
*I don't exactly know why anyone ever assumed that twitter would be an open platform without their own corporate and personal agenda, but apparently a ton of people made that assumption, and now are shocked to find that that was not the case.
> Shoving Javascpt shit down our throats has not created anything of value
Javascript has created a lot of value. For instance, Javascript can request huge amounts of information on your local machine, to solidly fingerprint you. They can then add this fingerprint to a database, and it is often good enough to track you all around the web.
To combat problem users, they just started putting a bit of javascript to actually load the webpage too. That way users will enable javascript, and the fingerprinting tracker along with it.
So it has created plenty of value. Out of you. For others.
> some of us post AC because we don't care enough to create an account
And sometimes logging in is a hassle even for those who have an account, and some things you just don't want tied to your account. But it remains the height of irony for an AC to post on how open he is about every single thing he does or thinks, while posting anon.
There's another problem that is barely worth discussing: the OP AC may in fact be engaging in future-illegal activities. It's easy to forget because we've mostly seen personal restrictions removed in the last few decades, but assuming that every present course or short term trend will continue indefinitely is the one method of predicting the future that is guaranteed to be wrong. In the future, certain information could become illegal (an ideologue government could ban, for instance, BDSM porn, including the transmission, possession, or viewing), certain math could become illegal (cryptography, DMCA, we've already seen "illegal numbers" with DVD Jon, that's practically ancient history in tech terms), and more relevantly, certain topics could become illegal or shunned in certain areas- or you could want to enter an industry where your personal life details actually DO result in discrimination or exclusion (legally or illegally). Keeping your privacy maintains future options much more so than not doing so.
I don't know whether ISPs will suddenly start doing deep packet inspection of your DNS traffic aimed to openDNS or google's DNS or whatever, for marketing and recording purposes (something that they could be doing now, I think, but have been kept at bay by the threat of an FCC coming down on them- they will obviously be more likely to act out if Congress and the President have told them that they can sell stuff without any fear of a regulator agency). I do know that being concerned about privacy, and being concerned about PIECES of your privacy even if you don't have the ENTIRE thing under control, are all sane and normal.
> I'm still waiting on someone to tell my why I should care about someone purchasing my browsing history.
Yes, you're so very open with everyone that you post as Anonymous Coward instead of even a pseudonym. Your super openness doesn't merely not track back to your real name, it doesn't even track back to a fake name.
UEFI has greatly complicated everything it touches that I run into professionally, because it has turned stuff that had a reasonably standard way of happening into a shitshow of different custom crap, stupid shims, etc. Legacy OSes get confused, so it seems mostly tuned towards the applications that use the latest and greatest stuff. Sometimes you have to try out numerous combinations where the firmware treats some components as legacy BIOS and others as UEFI. The machines take longer than ever to boot, which I'm not sure is related to UEFI, but seems to have started around the same time.
All this from a product that was supposed to make stuff simpler!
Bitching about boot sector viruses is a dumb joke. BIOS just boots what you give it. If the BIOS isn't writable, then you can be sure your virus is gone if you just take out all the writable parts. With UEFI, you can have a FIRMWARE VIRUS that is literally and completely impossible to detect or remove. UEFI's ability to only launch a signed shim thing only inconveniences me, while creating an entirely new low level exploitable place that you can never trust- that is actually the point of this news article, after all.
UEFI is more capable, and slowly becoming standard enough. But it is still a mess that allows a new infection vector, a new place to store viruses, and somehow tries to be more secure by giving only Microsoft a signing key that everyone else has to beg for. There's a lotta backwards decisions in UEFI-land.
Slashdot Mirror
Surfers in Denver can't compete either, and neither can skiers in Phoenix!
Another place you can't compete as a gamer is *most places in the United States*. In order to compete in a latency-relevant game online, you pretty much need to be in one of several major metropolitan areas. Because those areas are population dense, they serve plenty of people. But it doesn't take anyone a very far car trip to get somewhere that you can end up with no broadband.
The real reason Hawai'i, with pretty high population per land, is screwed, is because the servers are never really in Hawai'i either. But try to play competitive games with folks in Europe, or Asia- either you end up with a crappy ping, or they do. If a server set is in Chicago, then it effectively serves most of the US and Canada, but it won't help Tokyo or Berlin.
It's not particularly surprising, and I doubt that anything will change until the infrastructure does. We've already seen a lot of gaming get redesigned around the internet's latency (plenty of instant-fire guns, plenty of server-side driven movements of environment, not many projectile weapons that are barely dodgeable or physics effects that players originate and share), favoring the types of games that can be played over tens of milliseconds instead of milliseconds or less, and the types of games that require limited data from the server to the client. The semi-famous article about X-Wing versus TIE Fighter being designed for a reasonably less capable internet ( http://www.gamasutra.com/view/... ) might have aged a bit on its tech requirements, but remains relevant when pointing out how the internet already fundamentally limits games.
You are thinking Intel's Management Engine, normally called ME. I didn't want to play that game, but I wasn't willing to switch to ARM to avoid playing that game.
The AMD version is the Platform Security Processor (PSP, not to be confused with Sony's portable offering).
Both are bitched about by libreboot here:
https://libreboot.org/faq.html
AMD is on record as considering looking at the PSP and making it optional or open. Intel lurves their ME and has no plans to do anything with it except continue to make it mandatory. All x86 processors for at least the last half-decade have it built in. There are some few motherboards where the ME can be disabled or at least crippled, assuming you have access to some hardware bullshit and plenty of spare time. There may be equivalents on AMD but I think it is unlikely- Intel chips are happy to boot up for half an hour, AMD chips won't even release cores from reset until their One Ring has control, and has in the darkness bound them.
http://hackaday.com/2016/11/28...
If you are concerned about this- and you personally are- I suggest a router not made by any of the major manufactures (so some of them), and not running x86 (so, almost all of the remaining ones) set to default-deny incoming junk (all of them). I also suggest making sure that your actual network connection is not one that is glued to the motherboard, or is generally considered incompatible in some way (like a pci-e card), as that will minimize the likelihood that the ME/PSP can actually use the network without your help. I assume that any theoretically extant ME/PSP backdoor would most likely rely on an actual packet of some sort being delivered to the PC, as other methods (scan RAM for fixed value, watch for magic opcode, etc) would have both false positive possibility and not be as reliable against whatever targets would be tasty for a theoretical backdoor.
But frankly, until the PSP or ME can be safely disabled, you aren't going to get away from this "paranoid" concern completely on modern x86.
You have to read down just a bit, and then you see:
"Jaczek said that people in the program will be randomly contacted from each region's low-income population and invited to apply."
Basic income, in any iteration I've seen seriously applied, isn't just for poor people. Money for poor people is fucking welfare. We have that already. Welfare is the "provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for citizens WITHOUT CURRENT MEANS to support basic needs" (capsemphasis mine).
The idea of basic income is that everyone gets it baseline, no drama, no forms, no qualifications, with the obvious caveat that this money has to come from somewhere, so one assumes a relatively large increase in income tax. The supposed benefits and risks of this are numerous, but what is definitely known is that to actually test this, you need to not JUST be giving the money to poor people. The big question about basic income is, what effects will it have on society. You can make economic models all day long, the whole point about doing a test is to figure this out.
You want to know: are people less motivated to work? Are they healthier? Are they happier? What does it do to families? (the model being tested, where two single people living together get 2*17,000 = 34,000 a year, while if they marry they get 24,000 a year, has a pretty obvious and glaring bias as regards marriage)... and these questions aren't just relevant for poor people. They are relevant for middle class, and rich people.
All of these tests seem to be set up to give a certain set of results. They are carefully crafted to avoid asking the questions that need to be asked. I really don't know what to think about this.
> The rest are just putting stuff in boxes
When I built my current box, I ended up using:
Asus Mobo
Intel CPU
Nvidia GPU
WD HDD
Samsung SSD
Kingston RAM
EVGA Power Supply
Corsair case
No company in history, alone, could have matched that set of stuff. No solo company could have made their own motherboard, CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, and SSD. I needed all those parts though.
Who is closest on this list?
Intel makes a motherboard, and they will probably again make RAM- that's the closest to the full package, but they didn't have a motherboard that would do what I wanted.
You could in theory make a whole machine based around nvidia GPUs. It would be truly shitty at some tasks, but just fine at others. But they aren't really close to doing that.
Samsung could provide stand-in components for many of these parts if they wanted. Would a Samsung CPU be better than an Intel or an AMD? It seems pretty dicey.
The fact that these companies have specialized and settled on standards to any degree is massive progress. The fact that I had to act as my own system integrator to get everything I wanted is annoying, but not the end of the world. The idea that System 76 is going to be working on system integration is a good thing, and the fact that we don't have to rely on Intel CPUs that only fit in Intel made motherboards that only are willing to use Intel RAM and have a proprietary code on their wiring to talk to the Intel proprietary SSD, is a GREAT thing.
> They also never advertised that it would work on all future computer hardware
Conveniently, I actually have the Windows 7 box and disc that I purchased right in front of me!
The top requirement is: "1 GHz or faster 32 bit (x86) or 64 bit (x64) processor".
But even if I didn't have a stupid box, and even if I had one of the licenses that is sold with physical hardware like some kind of savage, failing to issue SECURITY UPDATES to processors that are FULLY BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE is totally ludicrous, and completely unprecedented in industry. When Intel releases a new processor, no one asks "will it be backwards compatible with Microsoft Word?", because ensuring that is the case is ENTIRE POINT of Intel's business model. There's NO justification for Microsoft's actions where it polls the processor and tries to search for an exact match: in fact, I bet a few motherboard guys right now are poking around with a firmware setting just in case this trend takes off, to force a chip to identify as another chip. The CPUID instruction isn't implemented by Intel and AMD for the purpose of breaking the ability of customers to upgrade, nor does it exist to help Microsoft's bottom line. It's unprecedented, irrational, and unreasonable, and it shits on everyone else in tech, from the kid opening up a new laptop as a gift to the CEO of Intel.
> Microsoft's job is to make money for their shareholders
That's every company's job, but notice how plenty of them manage to do that without taking actions that are "just barely legal" or non-monopolist in nature.
Also, none of the OSes you describe are "ancient" or "obsolete". Both of them are supported right now. Both of them are generally superior than Windows 10 for a variety of tasks.
There's no apologizing for Microsoft here. This is a dick move, and just on the edge of what is allowed. At the end of the day, a lot more people need to be punishing Microsoft instead of feebly trying to apologize for them. Sadly, Windows users appear to be willing to put up with anything, because the cost of switching to anything else can be so unreasonable. Even this overtly consumer-hostile set of policies has only pushed Apple percent by a few, and while it has nearly doubled Linux usage, it is still a drop in the bucket as a Windows desktop replacement.
Think of your PIN. Your phone PIN. Make the motion with your hands. You go to unlock your phone, you type your PIN. Think of your PIN. Think of your PIN. Think of your PIN. This doesn't violate any amendments because our judge sez so. Think of your PIN. Think of your PIN.
Team effort to a fault at times :/
Here's Fedora trying to come up with a release name for Fedora 20:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki...
Which, whatever, ok...
Eventually they decided they could never come up with release names any more, it was just too hard:
https://lists.fedoraproject.or...
Which is why you'll see stuff like 'Fedora Core 25 ("Twenty Five")' - the part in quotes was supposed to be a fun name. But every name is offensive.
https://lwn.net/Articles/48890...
You can't name things after astronomical objects, because those are offensive, because Mars is offensive (apparently lol). Anything named after something religious or mythological offends an atheist. Coffee can't be used because some religions are offended by coffee. Scientist names are sexist because most of them are men, and they even tried that card to claim numbers are offensive, but that one apparently didn't fly.
So when everyone gets together to name something, they eventually just decide that Things are simply not nameable, lest someone be offended. If instead, some asshole was in charge of naming, it would just be named GloryPork and anyone who wanted to bitch about it would have their complaints circular filed. There are benefits to just some asshole in charge.
> The future is using javascript and rendering to HTML. Rust, go, python, and all the other important languages can be compiled into javascript which runs everywhere
I 3 this troll. Please make a slashdotmeme outta this. This is app-guy levels of amusing. Which isn't saying much, but it is saying something.
> Why are they scumbags?
Like, philosophically? I guess because if there aren't vile antagonists, humans would have little to strive against.
Do you mean, practically? Presumably because they think it lines up with their business model, and they have no intention of serving their paying customers if they can get away with not doing that thing.
Or do you mean, why does THIS particular thing exemplify their scumbaggery? Well, that should be obvious: if you have a Windows 7 license, nothing on that box states or implies that the software will be broken by design on Intel chips past a certain date, for no reason except to invalidate the value of your purchase.
> Are you going to pay them extra to keep supporting Win7 on new hardware like that?
If you bought a Windows license, you already did. Nothing about it says "works with these exact chips: beyond that, we can guarantee nothing".
Much more relevantly, testing security and even functional patches on chips which jump through every hoop in the universe to be backwards binary compatible with THE NINETEEN EIGHTIES is no great effort. Not supporting OLD hardware is reasonable for OSes, assuming they don't screw over too many people. Not supporting NEW chips which are backwards compatible is UNPRECEDENTED in the industry. It's just a stupid cash grab to try to force everyone onto that supernaturally awful Windows 10.
> How long until they do something to break this?
Don't worry, it's rando github scripts all the way down.
This is an absolutely excellent analysis, thank you.
> Deep packet inspection doesn't break encryption
No, and they can't really get your search information as a result. HOWEVER, they do get to see every IP address you contact, when you contact, how long you contact for, how much data is passed, and in what direction. VPN reduces this fine tuned envelope information to "when your LAN is passing data, and how much", leaving out the very relevant "...and to whom" part.
Also note that DNS queries are almost always in plaintext as well, though that seems to be slowly changing, so A.B.C.D will also be understood to be whatever.com.
> Youtube ought to stick to their guns and provide you with free services and receive no compensation
Howsabout you send me 35 a month? Since that is "free" to you.
Under conditions Apple wasn't able to nerf the speed from, sure. The Qualcomm chips had to be dramatically underutilized in order for the Intel to look competitive.
> , but why do you think CA couldn't secede because it is in debt?
His point is that they'd be fucked, not because of debt, but because they operate at a loss.
I don't know if that's actually true though, especially not when counting that they would have control over taxation (in such a situation, a California company would owe as much money to the federal government of the 49 states of the USA as it would to the government of Botswana). Even in theory, it's a totally bonkers situation because you wouldn't predict any of the second order effects correctly (which companies stay, which leave, which groups become violent, etc). In practice it is well beyond lunacy: the punishment for secession is quite apparently immediate reconquest, as determined by the civil war.
> It is Linux mainstream.
I'm into some pretty niche repos, you probably haven't heard of them.
Milo unverified on twitter Jan 2016:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Milo banned on twitter Jun 2016:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
So they DID unverify Milo, with no reason given, and certainly no doubt as to his authenticity. Six months later they banned him for ToS violations.
> Is there evidence supporting the claim that the loss of the verified mark was related to their opinions and not an ambiguity in who was actually posting
One easy-to-find case:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Milo, of course, went on to be completely banned by twitter at a later time. But there was ABSOLUTELY no question than he was who he said he was: there was no ambiguity. So there's your "evidence supporting the claim". Because he was later banned, it definitely fits the idea that they unverified him as a may of adding meaning to the check mark of "this check mark denotes twitter approves of this", and therefore removing the check mark is a statement of political disagreement.
This event was not missed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
So this means that the blue mark removal was being received by both left and right as being an editorial statement about the person, and not a "guaranteed to be the person" mark.
> Not widely. I've never heard of this.
I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you.
Seriously though, you should have.
A couple years ago Twitter began revoking blue check marks from the trolly right wingers. Prior to this, the blue check mark just meant "this person is who they purport to be" with a twinge of "...and is important enough that we verified that fact". When they started revoking blue check marks, it added a new piece to it, "...and we editorially support what they say, in some fashion, because if we did not, we would have revoke their check mark".
At this point, it was fully politicized, but it was not discussed that widely. But once Twitter had made this editorial decision to "demote" those whose views they disliked, but had broken no terms of service, the next logical question would be to select the second-most-trolly right winger and ask, well ok, why do THEY have a blue check still? Do you guys agree with them?
This double meaning, and the twitter management wading into political debate, really hurts trust in their system*. There's also accusations of them handling political tweets that they disagree with differently- pushing them out to users at different times, claiming a tweet isn't found, etc. Unlike the blue check thing, which is very obviously top down policy, this one may just be a conspiracy theory (and maybe in fact just due to the fact that twitter's infrastructure is duct tape apparently). However, it's a lot more plausible than it was before they started doing this.
Another semi-conspiracy is that the anti-Trump tweets that respond to every Trump tweet and are always listed at the top are, in some sense, "rigged". This one also can't be shown to be true, but again, is more plausible given the provable side twitter has taken.
Basically, twitter not only has an agenda, but this has resulted in a bunch of claims that are plausible instead of laughable.
*I don't exactly know why anyone ever assumed that twitter would be an open platform without their own corporate and personal agenda, but apparently a ton of people made that assumption, and now are shocked to find that that was not the case.
> why the fuck was this behavior ever supported in the first place?
You know exactly why this behavior was desired, and it was never in the interest of the user.
> Shoving Javascpt shit down our throats has not created anything of value
Javascript has created a lot of value. For instance, Javascript can request huge amounts of information on your local machine, to solidly fingerprint you. They can then add this fingerprint to a database, and it is often good enough to track you all around the web.
To combat problem users, they just started putting a bit of javascript to actually load the webpage too. That way users will enable javascript, and the fingerprinting tracker along with it.
So it has created plenty of value. Out of you. For others.
> some of us post AC because we don't care enough to create an account
And sometimes logging in is a hassle even for those who have an account, and some things you just don't want tied to your account. But it remains the height of irony for an AC to post on how open he is about every single thing he does or thinks, while posting anon.
There's another problem that is barely worth discussing: the OP AC may in fact be engaging in future-illegal activities. It's easy to forget because we've mostly seen personal restrictions removed in the last few decades, but assuming that every present course or short term trend will continue indefinitely is the one method of predicting the future that is guaranteed to be wrong. In the future, certain information could become illegal (an ideologue government could ban, for instance, BDSM porn, including the transmission, possession, or viewing), certain math could become illegal (cryptography, DMCA, we've already seen "illegal numbers" with DVD Jon, that's practically ancient history in tech terms), and more relevantly, certain topics could become illegal or shunned in certain areas- or you could want to enter an industry where your personal life details actually DO result in discrimination or exclusion (legally or illegally). Keeping your privacy maintains future options much more so than not doing so.
I don't know whether ISPs will suddenly start doing deep packet inspection of your DNS traffic aimed to openDNS or google's DNS or whatever, for marketing and recording purposes (something that they could be doing now, I think, but have been kept at bay by the threat of an FCC coming down on them- they will obviously be more likely to act out if Congress and the President have told them that they can sell stuff without any fear of a regulator agency). I do know that being concerned about privacy, and being concerned about PIECES of your privacy even if you don't have the ENTIRE thing under control, are all sane and normal.
> I'm still waiting on someone to tell my why I should care about someone purchasing my browsing history.
Yes, you're so very open with everyone that you post as Anonymous Coward instead of even a pseudonym. Your super openness doesn't merely not track back to your real name, it doesn't even track back to a fake name.
AC claiming privacy doesn't matter. Sheesh.
But then the admins of the second VPN have access to all your browsing...
Pretty much fuck you.
UEFI has greatly complicated everything it touches that I run into professionally, because it has turned stuff that had a reasonably standard way of happening into a shitshow of different custom crap, stupid shims, etc. Legacy OSes get confused, so it seems mostly tuned towards the applications that use the latest and greatest stuff. Sometimes you have to try out numerous combinations where the firmware treats some components as legacy BIOS and others as UEFI. The machines take longer than ever to boot, which I'm not sure is related to UEFI, but seems to have started around the same time.
All this from a product that was supposed to make stuff simpler!
Bitching about boot sector viruses is a dumb joke. BIOS just boots what you give it. If the BIOS isn't writable, then you can be sure your virus is gone if you just take out all the writable parts. With UEFI, you can have a FIRMWARE VIRUS that is literally and completely impossible to detect or remove. UEFI's ability to only launch a signed shim thing only inconveniences me, while creating an entirely new low level exploitable place that you can never trust- that is actually the point of this news article, after all.
UEFI is more capable, and slowly becoming standard enough. But it is still a mess that allows a new infection vector, a new place to store viruses, and somehow tries to be more secure by giving only Microsoft a signing key that everyone else has to beg for. There's a lotta backwards decisions in UEFI-land.