You aren't OP, but you can play also. Here's one thing that you missed: This doesn't disable telemetry, because you can't turn it off under Privacy. Your options are "Basic, Enhanced, and Full". None of these options under Privacy disable telemetry- there's no off switch!
Ok, ball is in your court- say how to turn it off.
(I've got more after this, of course, so feel free to go for extra credit on the disabling to head off my next reply)
There's a giant wad of stuff that doesn't have OS X versions (or Linux versions). Games are the biggest offenders, but so are the one-off tools that many people require. There's stuff that goes the other way too, but I'm of the opinion that each of these big OSes offers a workflow that is not entirely compatible with the others.
> An iPad Pro is useless for them, except for being able to write an email to your parents asking for more money
While time will tell on this, a lot of people are excited about apple pencil, and I'm pretty sure there are artists that are planning on using it with their current app set (Adobe, Procreate, etc.). I doubt you could compile on it, but I bet you can draw.
It's still speculation, but that seems to be what people are saying... so far.
You don't have to deal with Microsoft, plays all or almost all your ios games, has a great stylus that appears to be suitable for professional work (I can't speak to this personally, but the artist forums are abuzz for damned sure), and syncs up with all your Apple Drama, assuming you roll that way.
The surface has some serious weight behind it to, and anyone might prefer to deal with Microsoft over dealing with Apple- it's not crapware, and Cook is obviously shit talking it because it's a competitor. But there's plenty of reasons to pick an ipad pro.
While I was saying this a little while ago, at this point I don't believe that even Enterprise truly turns off the spying- it just lets you pick the "no telemetry" option, but still leaks some data. It's certainly a lot better than Pro (or the free Home), which don't even give you the option to turn it off.
The post in question talks about how the ransomware will blow away the backup (yet another thing that has been going on in Windows for years, and in Linux/Apple/BSD never, right along with the ransomware itself- he's presupposing ways to add features to the Apple ransomware product that doesn't exist and can't work). Pretty sure that requires root.
Pretty sure that anyone talking this line of cocaine from a Windows box is high as fuck anyway tho. "So, pretend that this worked, instead of not working. And pretend that it didn't involve downloading a thing, and using a microsoft product, and pressing ok to all the prompts. And then pretend that, like in the Windows universe, it also wiped out your backup, because I guess you elevated it too. Just like Windows man. Just like."
In fairness, there was no way for HER to get anything at all. Her heirs eventually secured some acknowledgement for her in scientific papers, but no actual money either.
If they are in your house, they are probably there to harm you. There relative position to you, be it retreating to find a better weapon against you or actually running upon realizing that you won't go down without a fight, is not really important. If they didn't want to face a lethal end, they should not have threatened your life and home by breaking in and then subsequently trying to steal or kill or whatever.
I don't believe any of that violence in unjustified. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Dude did a service to society by removing the type of man that barges into other people's homes, threatening their lives with his gun and demanding their property. I'm happy to live in a state that recognizes that men who defend themselves in this manner should have an affirmative defense in civil and criminal court. 8 years in jail indeed. That guy should get some therapy, some steak, and a goddamned medal.
No, there's a bug in Microsoft Office that is allowing a locally created (not downloaded off the net- the video shows a local exploit) file to run some crap. It's just a standard Microsoft Office virus, except the damage is limited because it's on a Mac.
Even then, he had to rig the game to look real by running a locally created file- if he had actually downloaded it, there would have been a pop up to that extent. That's why he runs it off the desktop instead of pulling it or clicking it.
I just think it's hilarious that yet another Microsoft bug is being shown, but somehow it is spun to be Apple's fault. Like, what can Apple do? Just block Office?
Anyway, it's important to note that all the guy has to do is restore from backup, even local backup- there's no privilege escalation (what, you thought this was Windows?), so locally backed up data managed by any of the Apple things (or even your own scripts) will be safe by Unix DAC. Only if everything you have is literally owned by your logged in user, and you are using microsoft office, and you literally write the macro virus yourself (or download it and jam yes to every fucking "please don't trust this" button), is this a concern.
So now the ransomware got ROOT? Why does it have root? Just because Windows UAC can be bypassed doesn't mean *nix machines like Mac have this problem.
Macs have a ton of open source in their guts, and you accuse them of security through obscurity? You'd better fucking be posting from Fedora or Debian, dude. Don't take that tone from a Windoze box.
One important detail is left out- by running this locally, he skips the part where it warns you about running stuff off of the net. And of course, it's not so much an OS X problem as it is a Microsoft Office problem, because that's the vector.
So OS X can be owned, if you skip OS warnings AND use a Mircosoft product to actually do the owning, which even then can't act at root. Good grief man.
Windows apologists have been saying this for going on two decades, yet the fact remains that Windows still has drive by owning showing up a few times a year, and essentially no other platform does- even phones don't suffer from this often or ever, and there's sure as shit plenty of those.
This is a Windows problem. It's not because there aren't enough OS X, or enough Linux, or enough ios, or enough Android. It's because Windows.
I'm trying to figure out what the poster is saying by "we even suspect that it won't even make NP complete problems easier to solve". If factoring is NP complete (the first case), then does he mean that somehow Shor's algorithm is not ACTUALLY helping solve an NP complete problem? Like, the little bit of quantum processing we have is actually working by another mechanism that would break down if extended to large numbers of qubits, meaning that he's claiming a problem with quantum mechanics?
Or does he mean, that factoring is in P (a real possibility), and that the demonstrated trivial uses of Shor's algorithms are only reflecting something that could be solved in polynomial time without quantum stuff, if only we had the algorithm? Like, that it's only interesting because we are solving a classical polynomial problem that we just lack the classical polynomial time algorithm for?
Or does he mean, factoring is a "special case" - meaning an NP problem that is not in P that is solved in polynomial time by Shor's algorithm, but that he suspects that nothing else will come of quantum computing, like it can't solve any OTHER NP problems, nor any NP Complete problems, just this one (or a very narrow subset), for some special reason no one knows?
I'm obviously referring to classical computing when I mention P or NP, just as the poster I am responding to is. It's meaningless to say "make NP complete problems easier to solve" if it's referring to anything but the common usage of problems that are NP complete in classical, but could be solved in polynomial time on a quantum computer.
Sadly, you're correct. And like, it's a katana. Unless the guy wielding it was a samurai. Historical samurai used several sword types- from the traditional long and short to others. But I don't think he was, so call a katana a katana!
Importantly, though- in many places in America, killing an intruder (with a knife, with a gun, with a sword, with any fatal force) is entirely legal, based on castle doctrine laws. I avoid states without castle doctrine laws when I can- I believe self defense is a human right, and that a man's home is his castle, and I'm glad I can live in a place that has that codified into law. That being said, it's obvious that many don't like that, and "the entire UK" seems to be one of them.
You use the symbolic. They are concise, they help with the processing in the meat brain (if writing words was better for humans parsing formula, then mathematicians would never have resorted to formula), and they don't need to be translated when going to a language where Greater Than doesn't abbreviate to GT.
None of the other species developed tech besides the level and maybe the wheel, though. We obviously can't get a message from sapients that can't send one or aren't trying, and definitely not unintelligent life- that's the I in SETI, after all.
There's a short list of effects that can span distance, and photons are at the top. It doesn't matter what they developed with- if they are sending signal, then they are a lot more advanced than us, and they'll know that radio is a reasonable thing, even if they never gave a shit about it themselves.
> Totally agree. Life is all around us here on the earth and most of it is related to us, yet none of it uses radio. This alone should tell us radio is a rare thing, not a common thing.
But SETI isn't supposed to find space jellyfish, it's trying to find people who are actively trying to make their presence known (and likely send a message).
It's not SETL. You aren't looking for extraterrestrial life. You're looking for extraterrestrial intelligence- specifically, that which is trying to find an easy way to say "hello" (or "kneel", or "build me some Von Neumann probes"), over a vast distance.
We don't have a way to find a planet teeming with life that isn't intelligent, or is intelligent but isn't trying to send a postcard.
Eh, I only agree with you in part. SETI won't find casual RF communications at long distances, and maybe not even short distances. SETI absolutely could find a species that is looking to communicate (for ill or good). This is because RF communications are a really solid way to get a message across a lot of galactic scale space, when pretty much nothing else could do so very easily. You'd have to be directing that communication, is the big catch, over most distances that are interesting, so it sort of assumes that there's at least one species within the light cone that wants to send a message AND has enough tech AND has enough energy to be beaming us their insurance ads or whatever.
The "how do other species develop" thing isn't that interesting- If you're a species asking "how do we say hello to others really far away", then RF is a pretty solid answer- even if you didn't start with the idea of radio because you never cared about what it offered you locally, because if you are trying to communicate at distance you aren't focused on how to communicate with beings that speak or think exactly like you. So if your species never used RF at all, you'd still look into it if wanted to beam a message to specific stars or something.
The flipside- detecting aliens who aren't actively trying to send a message- requires thoughts like those in your post for certain, but it also presupposes a level of tech that we mostly don't seem to have.
That last point- do you mean that: > Factoring is NP complete, and entanglement won't work the way it is supposed to in Shor's algorithm*? > Factoring is P, and shor's algorithm only works for that reason? > Factoring is a special case, but entanglement doesn't solve a broad or general set of NP problems? > Something else?
*You probably don't mean this one because Shor's algorithm has been used small numbers already, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Shh don't get to the keylogger service and stuff until later. You have to play the game slowly. Don't jump to the end.
You aren't OP, but you can play also. Here's one thing that you missed: This doesn't disable telemetry, because you can't turn it off under Privacy. Your options are "Basic, Enhanced, and Full". None of these options under Privacy disable telemetry- there's no off switch!
Ok, ball is in your court- say how to turn it off.
(I've got more after this, of course, so feel free to go for extra credit on the disabling to head off my next reply)
In fairness, touching Apple products absolutely makes you smug. They are very shiny.
There's a giant wad of stuff that doesn't have OS X versions (or Linux versions). Games are the biggest offenders, but so are the one-off tools that many people require. There's stuff that goes the other way too, but I'm of the opinion that each of these big OSes offers a workflow that is not entirely compatible with the others.
> An iPad Pro is useless for them, except for being able to write an email to your parents asking for more money
While time will tell on this, a lot of people are excited about apple pencil, and I'm pretty sure there are artists that are planning on using it with their current app set (Adobe, Procreate, etc.). I doubt you could compile on it, but I bet you can draw.
It's still speculation, but that seems to be what people are saying... so far.
> why would anyone want an iPad Pro ?
You don't have to deal with Microsoft, plays all or almost all your ios games, has a great stylus that appears to be suitable for professional work (I can't speak to this personally, but the artist forums are abuzz for damned sure), and syncs up with all your Apple Drama, assuming you roll that way.
The surface has some serious weight behind it to, and anyone might prefer to deal with Microsoft over dealing with Apple- it's not crapware, and Cook is obviously shit talking it because it's a competitor. But there's plenty of reasons to pick an ipad pro.
While I was saying this a little while ago, at this point I don't believe that even Enterprise truly turns off the spying- it just lets you pick the "no telemetry" option, but still leaks some data. It's certainly a lot better than Pro (or the free Home), which don't even give you the option to turn it off.
> trivial to mitigate
Would you like to play a game?
Step 1- You tell me how to mitigate the spying.
Step 2- I tell you a thing you missed.
If I can't find anything else, or I stop responding, you win.
If you stop responding, or can't find the solution, I win. If you post a link, I win.
Note: Even if you win, you'll probably have to backtrack on your "trivial to mitigate".
Right now I'm winning, because you haven't told how to turn off a single piece of telemetry or update. Go ahead, post your guide.
The post in question talks about how the ransomware will blow away the backup (yet another thing that has been going on in Windows for years, and in Linux/Apple/BSD never, right along with the ransomware itself- he's presupposing ways to add features to the Apple ransomware product that doesn't exist and can't work). Pretty sure that requires root.
Pretty sure that anyone talking this line of cocaine from a Windows box is high as fuck anyway tho. "So, pretend that this worked, instead of not working. And pretend that it didn't involve downloading a thing, and using a microsoft product, and pressing ok to all the prompts. And then pretend that, like in the Windows universe, it also wiped out your backup, because I guess you elevated it too. Just like Windows man. Just like."
In fairness, there was no way for HER to get anything at all. Her heirs eventually secured some acknowledgement for her in scientific papers, but no actual money either.
If they are in your house, they are probably there to harm you. There relative position to you, be it retreating to find a better weapon against you or actually running upon realizing that you won't go down without a fight, is not really important. If they didn't want to face a lethal end, they should not have threatened your life and home by breaking in and then subsequently trying to steal or kill or whatever.
I don't believe any of that violence in unjustified. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Dude did a service to society by removing the type of man that barges into other people's homes, threatening their lives with his gun and demanding their property. I'm happy to live in a state that recognizes that men who defend themselves in this manner should have an affirmative defense in civil and criminal court. 8 years in jail indeed. That guy should get some therapy, some steak, and a goddamned medal.
No, there's a bug in Microsoft Office that is allowing a locally created (not downloaded off the net- the video shows a local exploit) file to run some crap. It's just a standard Microsoft Office virus, except the damage is limited because it's on a Mac.
Even then, he had to rig the game to look real by running a locally created file- if he had actually downloaded it, there would have been a pop up to that extent. That's why he runs it off the desktop instead of pulling it or clicking it.
I just think it's hilarious that yet another Microsoft bug is being shown, but somehow it is spun to be Apple's fault. Like, what can Apple do? Just block Office?
Anyway, it's important to note that all the guy has to do is restore from backup, even local backup- there's no privilege escalation (what, you thought this was Windows?), so locally backed up data managed by any of the Apple things (or even your own scripts) will be safe by Unix DAC. Only if everything you have is literally owned by your logged in user, and you are using microsoft office, and you literally write the macro virus yourself (or download it and jam yes to every fucking "please don't trust this" button), is this a concern.
So now the ransomware got ROOT? Why does it have root? Just because Windows UAC can be bypassed doesn't mean *nix machines like Mac have this problem.
Macs have a ton of open source in their guts, and you accuse them of security through obscurity? You'd better fucking be posting from Fedora or Debian, dude. Don't take that tone from a Windoze box.
Don't forget that you have to use a Microsoft product. No exploit, even one with all these hoops, is complete without a Microsoft product in the loop.
One important detail is left out- by running this locally, he skips the part where it warns you about running stuff off of the net. And of course, it's not so much an OS X problem as it is a Microsoft Office problem, because that's the vector.
So OS X can be owned, if you skip OS warnings AND use a Mircosoft product to actually do the owning, which even then can't act at root. Good grief man.
Windows apologists have been saying this for going on two decades, yet the fact remains that Windows still has drive by owning showing up a few times a year, and essentially no other platform does- even phones don't suffer from this often or ever, and there's sure as shit plenty of those.
This is a Windows problem. It's not because there aren't enough OS X, or enough Linux, or enough ios, or enough Android. It's because Windows.
It's always been because Windows.
I'm trying to figure out what the poster is saying by "we even suspect that it won't even make NP complete problems easier to solve". If factoring is NP complete (the first case), then does he mean that somehow Shor's algorithm is not ACTUALLY helping solve an NP complete problem? Like, the little bit of quantum processing we have is actually working by another mechanism that would break down if extended to large numbers of qubits, meaning that he's claiming a problem with quantum mechanics?
Or does he mean, that factoring is in P (a real possibility), and that the demonstrated trivial uses of Shor's algorithms are only reflecting something that could be solved in polynomial time without quantum stuff, if only we had the algorithm? Like, that it's only interesting because we are solving a classical polynomial problem that we just lack the classical polynomial time algorithm for?
Or does he mean, factoring is a "special case" - meaning an NP problem that is not in P that is solved in polynomial time by Shor's algorithm, but that he suspects that nothing else will come of quantum computing, like it can't solve any OTHER NP problems, nor any NP Complete problems, just this one (or a very narrow subset), for some special reason no one knows?
I'm obviously referring to classical computing when I mention P or NP, just as the poster I am responding to is. It's meaningless to say "make NP complete problems easier to solve" if it's referring to anything but the common usage of problems that are NP complete in classical, but could be solved in polynomial time on a quantum computer.
Tutanota seems to be on board as well.
Sadly, you're correct. And like, it's a katana. Unless the guy wielding it was a samurai. Historical samurai used several sword types- from the traditional long and short to others. But I don't think he was, so call a katana a katana!
Importantly, though- in many places in America, killing an intruder (with a knife, with a gun, with a sword, with any fatal force) is entirely legal, based on castle doctrine laws. I avoid states without castle doctrine laws when I can- I believe self defense is a human right, and that a man's home is his castle, and I'm glad I can live in a place that has that codified into law. That being said, it's obvious that many don't like that, and "the entire UK" seems to be one of them.
Because code review
You use the symbolic. They are concise, they help with the processing in the meat brain (if writing words was better for humans parsing formula, then mathematicians would never have resorted to formula), and they don't need to be translated when going to a language where Greater Than doesn't abbreviate to GT.
None of the other species developed tech besides the level and maybe the wheel, though. We obviously can't get a message from sapients that can't send one or aren't trying, and definitely not unintelligent life- that's the I in SETI, after all.
There's a short list of effects that can span distance, and photons are at the top. It doesn't matter what they developed with- if they are sending signal, then they are a lot more advanced than us, and they'll know that radio is a reasonable thing, even if they never gave a shit about it themselves.
> Totally agree. Life is all around us here on the earth and most of it is related to us, yet none of it uses radio. This alone should tell us radio is a rare thing, not a common thing.
But SETI isn't supposed to find space jellyfish, it's trying to find people who are actively trying to make their presence known (and likely send a message).
It's not SETL. You aren't looking for extraterrestrial life. You're looking for extraterrestrial intelligence- specifically, that which is trying to find an easy way to say "hello" (or "kneel", or "build me some Von Neumann probes"), over a vast distance.
We don't have a way to find a planet teeming with life that isn't intelligent, or is intelligent but isn't trying to send a postcard.
Eh, I only agree with you in part. SETI won't find casual RF communications at long distances, and maybe not even short distances. SETI absolutely could find a species that is looking to communicate (for ill or good). This is because RF communications are a really solid way to get a message across a lot of galactic scale space, when pretty much nothing else could do so very easily. You'd have to be directing that communication, is the big catch, over most distances that are interesting, so it sort of assumes that there's at least one species within the light cone that wants to send a message AND has enough tech AND has enough energy to be beaming us their insurance ads or whatever.
The "how do other species develop" thing isn't that interesting- If you're a species asking "how do we say hello to others really far away", then RF is a pretty solid answer- even if you didn't start with the idea of radio because you never cared about what it offered you locally, because if you are trying to communicate at distance you aren't focused on how to communicate with beings that speak or think exactly like you. So if your species never used RF at all, you'd still look into it if wanted to beam a message to specific stars or something.
The flipside- detecting aliens who aren't actively trying to send a message- requires thoughts like those in your post for certain, but it also presupposes a level of tech that we mostly don't seem to have.
That last point- do you mean that:
> Factoring is NP complete, and entanglement won't work the way it is supposed to in Shor's algorithm*?
> Factoring is P, and shor's algorithm only works for that reason?
> Factoring is a special case, but entanglement doesn't solve a broad or general set of NP problems?
> Something else?
*You probably don't mean this one because Shor's algorithm has been used small numbers already, right?