Not SOFTWARE updates, HARDWARE updates. Things like the additional battery protection frame that you can come in and have retrofitted to your Model S for NO COST. They're rolling out hardware upgrades to their vehicles and installing them for free. That's completely different than rolling out updates for firmware, much more costly, and something they're blazing some serious trails by doing.
Imagine what the Americans would do if we got rid of the entire portion of the population who works illegally for less than the minimum wage. Completely non-functioning society right there. Oh the American Dream.
I think you need to take a step back and understand that this industry standard practice for 50+ years is Bad Agriculture. You used the words safe, cheap, and environmentally benign regarding Round-Up - guess what, plants wouldn't need to be given a resistance against it if it was environmentally benign. We're talking about a poison whose sole purpose is to kill living things. If you can't keep seed and keep your crop rolling, that is the opposite of sustainable. If you are forced to purchase seed every year, when crops themselves are self-sustaining when done properly, that is a FAILURE of the industry. Contracts are no excuse for doing things wrong. It's garbage, it's destroying our environment. Monsanto needs to stop killing us, now.
I think we might want to re-evaluate the ability to sign away our right to sue. That should probably be one of those rights that you explicitly can't sign away. The ruling should go something along the lines of, an agreement cannot made that infringes the rights of a person to make claim of corporate wrongdoing. It's always felt like a cop-out, an outright "We're breaking the law but you agreed not to call us on it" - let's call the system on it.
The only thing you do by hiding this kind of information is limit the number of heads working to fix it. I'm tired of these attempts at plugging the hole in the dam by pretending the hole isn't there until someone plugs it.
As an advisor on the committee which put forward the policy, he probably actually did provide the alternative. But his alternative was given pass for the pain in the ass. Scapegoating the guy who warned against the problem? That's why these places have this kind of problem to begin with.
Do you not remember the grounding of a presidential figure's aircraft on the basis of the possibility that Snowden was on it? To say this man had a choice is to completely ignore the situation. 100 percent.
It has done so by making the issue public and allowing it to be given proper consideration, as opposed to being covered up by those in the know while people continue exploiting it. This is a significant step forward in the open source discussion because this is open source working as it should, the bug was found because there were many eyes in the general area. Open Source versus Closed Source is becoming the difference between systems you can vouch for and systems you can't.
In a closed source world we would have everybody vulnerable without anyone knowing about it. That only helps if you're one of the people abusing it, because nobody is taking precautions against it. Now we are actually able to respond to a real threat that we can explore deeply. Sorry, closed source is not going to give me confidence.
I'd bring it up on the basis of systemd not being ready, developers involved with systemd refusing to fix their broken code and having to get yelled at by Linus Torvalds on the LKML. It's a seriously disheartening state of affairs, watching the base system being eroded in the name of new hotness. Honestly, how, the, fuck, hard, can, it, be, to, maintain, your, systems, -, every vendor on the planet. How many times are the vendors going to break everything and go off on tangents before people get sick of it and stop upgrading? Ask the XP users.
The problem with our world is that a high level of competency is actually required for an awful lot of things, and nobody wants to be competent anymore.
The guy who does all that is called "The President of the United States".
I'm not sure why you seem to think his policies change then the dude playing him does.
Did you install Windows 7 in Release Candidate then refuse to install Intel's drivers or something? I installed Windows 7 64bit on my Dell laptop (2006 model, i945, right after the Core became Core 2) the day the public thing was released and had no such driver issues.
It implies that the already uncomfortably deep issue is even deeper than it appears. It's still directly related to memory management issues. I'm not comfortable shrugging this off as unrelated, because industry standard security related software is Not handling memory correctly.
The point is that they found OpenSSL to break when compiled without the malloc wrapper. OpenSSL relies on incorrect behavior in a malloc wrapper. Relies on it. Doesn't work without it. The result is the heartbleed bug. The result is that OpenSSL must be audited from the ground up and fixed so it doesn't require a broken memory allocation routine. Theo is still right.
And I see the same issues on Windows 7 machines all the time. I see the same kinds of hardware failures taking out machines of all generations, and the same kinds of software failures taking out machines of all generations. The only thing that has changed is, well, nothing. The arguments are still the same, too. Newer is only better if it provides something of value, and for a lot of people it just straight doesn't.
Except it really does.
XP is more than capable enough for real world computing usage. I hate to admit it, but it's become kind of a shining example of how derelict this upgrade cycle is.
Vista Capable marked the point where computers outperformed the needs of the operating system and the applications, in a huge way. It was bad enough that Vista never grew out of the reputation. Windows 7, while more efficient, still suffers the same issues if you limit its RAM to 1GB. That sounds reasonable coming from the perspective of using Windows 7 as a base point, but it's completely unreasonable when you take into account the fact that you can run 99% of the same software on a system that takes a fraction of the resources. The security issue is a real and nasty one, it's fact that you can attach an un-patched Windows XP computer to the internet raw and it won't last long enough to perform the updates. But that risk disappears when you add even the most basic NAT router to the mix. Every attack vector beyond the remote service exploits requires enough user interaction to DISAPPEAR if not for the human element of people throwing in all kinds of untrusted crap and pretending like their problem doesn't exist.
That's not actually valid. In fact, that's direct misinformation. I feel like we hit a user-facing computational peak as we went through 2006, during the XP->Vista migration. We had a bunch of crazy fast new computers with an operating system that could not do, and a bunch of bat-out-of-hell SLIGHTLY older computers running XP. The important part being that XP was hosting just about everything we do now, and doing everything USEFUL that Vista did, with a much smaller footprint.
We've had further upgrades, they are no more an *improvement* on the basic operating system than Vista was.
Hell, I did most of this stuff on a 1989 vintage Mac before the JavaScript concentration on the web became too high.
XP was bloatware when it was released, the computers caught up. The problem is that the computers caught up to Windows 7. Hell, they caught up to Vista. The only real reason for the upgrade path is to make it so the computers are sufficiently bogged down again. The software loadout hasn't meaningfully changed in 15 years, we have some different brandings and various corporate-level mergers shuffling everything around, but you still down at your computer and fire up your web browser, office suite, social networking (skype more than instant messaging these days, unless you count SMS which is routed through e-mail).
There's a huge disconnect where a significant portion of the technological community forgets that we've been doing the same shit for that long and insists on completely fabricated concepts to force the upgrade cycle. The corporations are pushing it hard and screwing everyone in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
Not SOFTWARE updates, HARDWARE updates. Things like the additional battery protection frame that you can come in and have retrofitted to your Model S for NO COST. They're rolling out hardware upgrades to their vehicles and installing them for free. That's completely different than rolling out updates for firmware, much more costly, and something they're blazing some serious trails by doing.
Imagine what the Americans would do if we got rid of the entire portion of the population who works illegally for less than the minimum wage. Completely non-functioning society right there. Oh the American Dream.
I think you need to take a step back and understand that this industry standard practice for 50+ years is Bad Agriculture. You used the words safe, cheap, and environmentally benign regarding Round-Up - guess what, plants wouldn't need to be given a resistance against it if it was environmentally benign. We're talking about a poison whose sole purpose is to kill living things. If you can't keep seed and keep your crop rolling, that is the opposite of sustainable. If you are forced to purchase seed every year, when crops themselves are self-sustaining when done properly, that is a FAILURE of the industry. Contracts are no excuse for doing things wrong. It's garbage, it's destroying our environment. Monsanto needs to stop killing us, now.
I think we might want to re-evaluate the ability to sign away our right to sue. That should probably be one of those rights that you explicitly can't sign away. The ruling should go something along the lines of, an agreement cannot made that infringes the rights of a person to make claim of corporate wrongdoing. It's always felt like a cop-out, an outright "We're breaking the law but you agreed not to call us on it" - let's call the system on it.
The only thing you do by hiding this kind of information is limit the number of heads working to fix it. I'm tired of these attempts at plugging the hole in the dam by pretending the hole isn't there until someone plugs it.
Why is it that he should have chosen to sacrifice his life over taking the singular opportunity for asylum that was at all remotely feasible?
As an advisor on the committee which put forward the policy, he probably actually did provide the alternative. But his alternative was given pass for the pain in the ass. Scapegoating the guy who warned against the problem? That's why these places have this kind of problem to begin with.
Do you not remember the grounding of a presidential figure's aircraft on the basis of the possibility that Snowden was on it? To say this man had a choice is to completely ignore the situation. 100 percent.
I'm gonna go out of my way and say that every single congress critter was in on it, right up until they realized they were being watched as well.
One step closer to reality.
No more so than letting the committee, group, or department off without scrutiny of their actions.
It has done so by making the issue public and allowing it to be given proper consideration, as opposed to being covered up by those in the know while people continue exploiting it. This is a significant step forward in the open source discussion because this is open source working as it should, the bug was found because there were many eyes in the general area. Open Source versus Closed Source is becoming the difference between systems you can vouch for and systems you can't.
In a closed source world we would have everybody vulnerable without anyone knowing about it. That only helps if you're one of the people abusing it, because nobody is taking precautions against it. Now we are actually able to respond to a real threat that we can explore deeply. Sorry, closed source is not going to give me confidence.
and people wonder why XP lasted so long
I'd bring it up on the basis of systemd not being ready, developers involved with systemd refusing to fix their broken code and having to get yelled at by Linus Torvalds on the LKML. It's a seriously disheartening state of affairs, watching the base system being eroded in the name of new hotness. Honestly, how, the, fuck, hard, can, it, be, to, maintain, your, systems, -, every vendor on the planet. How many times are the vendors going to break everything and go off on tangents before people get sick of it and stop upgrading? Ask the XP users.
This comment gets me thinking, how can we apply the UNIX Philosophy to the GUI?
I'm ending up somewhere in between OpenStep and Plan 9...
The problem with our world is that a high level of competency is actually required for an awful lot of things, and nobody wants to be competent anymore.
The guy who does all that is called "The President of the United States".
I'm not sure why you seem to think his policies change then the dude playing him does.
Did you install Windows 7 in Release Candidate then refuse to install Intel's drivers or something? I installed Windows 7 64bit on my Dell laptop (2006 model, i945, right after the Core became Core 2) the day the public thing was released and had no such driver issues.
It implies that the already uncomfortably deep issue is even deeper than it appears. It's still directly related to memory management issues. I'm not comfortable shrugging this off as unrelated, because industry standard security related software is Not handling memory correctly.
The point is that they found OpenSSL to break when compiled without the malloc wrapper. OpenSSL relies on incorrect behavior in a malloc wrapper. Relies on it. Doesn't work without it. The result is the heartbleed bug. The result is that OpenSSL must be audited from the ground up and fixed so it doesn't require a broken memory allocation routine. Theo is still right.
And I see the same issues on Windows 7 machines all the time. I see the same kinds of hardware failures taking out machines of all generations, and the same kinds of software failures taking out machines of all generations. The only thing that has changed is, well, nothing. The arguments are still the same, too. Newer is only better if it provides something of value, and for a lot of people it just straight doesn't.
Except it really does.
XP is more than capable enough for real world computing usage. I hate to admit it, but it's become kind of a shining example of how derelict this upgrade cycle is.
Vista Capable marked the point where computers outperformed the needs of the operating system and the applications, in a huge way. It was bad enough that Vista never grew out of the reputation. Windows 7, while more efficient, still suffers the same issues if you limit its RAM to 1GB. That sounds reasonable coming from the perspective of using Windows 7 as a base point, but it's completely unreasonable when you take into account the fact that you can run 99% of the same software on a system that takes a fraction of the resources. The security issue is a real and nasty one, it's fact that you can attach an un-patched Windows XP computer to the internet raw and it won't last long enough to perform the updates. But that risk disappears when you add even the most basic NAT router to the mix. Every attack vector beyond the remote service exploits requires enough user interaction to DISAPPEAR if not for the human element of people throwing in all kinds of untrusted crap and pretending like their problem doesn't exist.
That's not actually valid. In fact, that's direct misinformation. I feel like we hit a user-facing computational peak as we went through 2006, during the XP->Vista migration. We had a bunch of crazy fast new computers with an operating system that could not do, and a bunch of bat-out-of-hell SLIGHTLY older computers running XP. The important part being that XP was hosting just about everything we do now, and doing everything USEFUL that Vista did, with a much smaller footprint.
We've had further upgrades, they are no more an *improvement* on the basic operating system than Vista was.
Hell, I did most of this stuff on a 1989 vintage Mac before the JavaScript concentration on the web became too high.
XP was bloatware when it was released, the computers caught up. The problem is that the computers caught up to Windows 7. Hell, they caught up to Vista. The only real reason for the upgrade path is to make it so the computers are sufficiently bogged down again. The software loadout hasn't meaningfully changed in 15 years, we have some different brandings and various corporate-level mergers shuffling everything around, but you still down at your computer and fire up your web browser, office suite, social networking (skype more than instant messaging these days, unless you count SMS which is routed through e-mail).
There's a huge disconnect where a significant portion of the technological community forgets that we've been doing the same shit for that long and insists on completely fabricated concepts to force the upgrade cycle. The corporations are pushing it hard and screwing everyone in the process.
Except 5 years ago, XP was sold as new.