Or you could just be in denial about groups 1-3 because you are an ideologue (corrected that for you) that needs a story to tell that supports your insanity as irrational.
As with all things, simplifying it to that extent is damaging to the political discourse on science. Climate change is a lot more intricate than just saying "humans did it, let's stop breathing all at once". The problem is we don't understand a lot of it and scientists continuously walk back statements they held in the past. The best thing to say is "I don't know for sure what will happen in the future, but the data points to humans causing shifts in temperature on par with previous extinction events".
There are really 4 or even 5 groups in this debate: - The dictatorship engineers: Climate change is real and we'll all die if we don't install a government that has the nuts to kill off a massive amount of people today - The social engineers: Climate change is real and we'll all die if we don't force people to completely eliminate all excesses today and live off the land. These people ignore the economic aspects of changing behaviors. - The scientists: Our current model predicts a massive change, we don't know what that means or what will happen, but we probably have to do something - The economic engineers: Climate change may be real but the market will fix it once it becomes an actual threat - The climate change deniers: God would never let us die, therefore it isn't real.
Both ends of the spectrum will never get anywhere, however that's where the media concentrates as scientists just throw their hands up saying nobody wants to do anything, the answer is somewhere around market driven behavioral engineering in my opinion. Doomsday cults never go anywhere because too many people have cried wolf. NASA scientists 10 years ago said we'd all be living in a desolate wasteland by now and others did so 20 and 30 years ago, yes it was hyperbole, no scientists believed it but it made for a good news story and now even less people believe it.
The problem typically is IT folk that have no way what they are doing implementing rules that are impossible to follow and then people find workarounds because you either don't have sufficient support to help everyone solve their problems or you don't approve of solutions your IT department doesn't think up.
You can pick up uranium ore of the ground, it gets stuck in your shoe and sets off sensors at the airport, it's a nuisance but it's not 'dangerous', people get more radiation working a few months on the ISS and I don't see Scott Kelly dying of radiation sickness or cancer.
Moreover this was (according to the article) kept in a bucket. Any harmful radiation from these sources can be held back by a sheet of paper.
If you need to staff a phone 5 days a week, going to 4 days makes no financial sense, you're just a warm body we want to keep in the seat as long as possible for the least amount of money.
For people that have a career, where work-life is important this may be of benefit, but then again, you're already salaried and the job market (at least right now) is wide open. I understand the stress, but people have to get more used to asking what THEY want out of a job.
In a lot of cases, it's failure to market the thing correctly. Kodak had a digital camera about 20 years too early (1975) but with very low quality and high price and nothing like the camera's we're used to today, they simply saw no market and didn't continue developing it.
Once you've been breached you're at least 2-3 years too late to contain the issue. These "nation states" hackers typically aren't the best in the field. They get in through inept security IT people above all else.
These companies have something to sell you - containment is a poor security strategy but sadly most companies won't invest until something happens so containment is their only strategy.
These businesses are just capturing what the market wants or can carry. What has really failed, especially in inner cities are both economic and social policies. When it's better for tax reasons to have a single parent family, you're going to drive the poor to single families which long-term causes both economic and social instability of all sorts. When you give people thousands of dollars per month in overvalued coupons every month to buy 'food' (typically sponsored by or limited to Nestle, Kellogg's, Dole products etc) you're going to create a black market which corner shops and dollar stores are really good at fulfilling the demand for. When we were on food stamps a few years ago, the total value of the 'checks' was $2500/month but at the regular grocery stores, the products were about half the price of the value of the stamp.
Because these things happen before Apple finds out and revokes the certificate. Apple has no involvement with Enterprise apps, they don't distribute them. Until someone complains, they don't know, these "companies" also buy massive numbers of certificates under various names, not just one, when one gets revoked, they just buy and/or use another one
What you're proposing is a DRM scheme, none of them really work because you always need access to the code that is executing on your machine.
These cases, the user is basically circumventing the app store completely so there is nothing Apple can do to stop distributing these applications and the user that installs them is thoroughly warned that these enterprise connections allow the creator to pretty much push any configuration they want, whether it's rerouting all the traffic through a VPN or bricking the phone.
In many cases these certs are gotten by posing as a legitimate developer to Apple and then signing malware with it. They actually pay the $99, often with a stolen credit card and will even publish "legitimate" apps (often rebranded/recompiled crap) before starting a campaign.
Not necessarily, they may simply be reacting to consumer demand, much like a store owner does when he sees there are is a lot of demand, they may raise prices, if demand suddenly drops, they may lower prices. If your price fluctuates a lot, so do consumers so in the end you come to a mutual 'agreement' across all parties that works best for everyone (customers and providers) while still guaranteeing a profit.
What these people want is an algorithm that always goes in the customers' apparent/current best interest (lowest price possible) but this is impossible to sustain.
Since Blizzard was taken over by Activision, it's all about the profits. eSports isn't that much of a money generator, it promotes your game/brand and creates a fanbase but it doesn't immediately give you (the diminishing) millions of dollars like releasing Call of Duty 21 on XBox.
eSports and the 'classic' Blizzard (StarCraft, WarCraft and Diablo) games have a loyal following, but they're hard games to make and trying to monetize them with DLC (eg. Diablo 3) hasn't worked well because the fans expect a fully fleshed out game with consistent lore when you pay top dollar for the title/franchise, you don't expect a Blizzard game to take you out of the game every 5 minutes into the real world to remind you to spend real money. Even things like Heroes and Hearthstone with loads of DLC and a huge fan base are 'too much work' given the revenue it brings in and the revenue model is based on respectively cramming and gambling which has turned a lot of people off.
I agree, my point was that although still fucked up, it's a lot better than China in the 20th century. The summary makes it sound like they've gotten worse - physically crushing dissent on public media is no longer acceptable in their society. They're still politically on the far left so squashing dissent is kind of the natural go-to (see Stalin, Cuba, Twitter etc) and a political necessity to keep those in power from being overthrown.
Where is the data that the Chinese government is doing worse than eg during Tiananmen. Sure they have cracked down on "dissent" but that's partially because we've been politically rather quiet the last few decades because we wanted them to purchase our debt. I think China is all around better off, even though their politics still suck, society there has become markedly more "liberal" although still very much far left.
NN in the Obama-sense of the word means regulating existing providers so new providers and actual competitions stands no chance to comply with the regulation.
I also want pre-2010 Net Neutrality which the tech world then defined as no messing (QoS or zero rating without my consent) with the traffic. Then Obama changed it to: sure zero rating is allowed as long as you have FTC overseeing what the FCC did. Then Trump completely removed those rules but left FCC oversight removed.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me a model that will accurately predict the future, I will give you a million dollars. A scientist that tells you otherwise is not a scientist.
Or you could just be in denial about groups 1-3 because you are an ideologue (corrected that for you) that needs a story to tell that supports your insanity as irrational.
As with all things, simplifying it to that extent is damaging to the political discourse on science. Climate change is a lot more intricate than just saying "humans did it, let's stop breathing all at once". The problem is we don't understand a lot of it and scientists continuously walk back statements they held in the past. The best thing to say is "I don't know for sure what will happen in the future, but the data points to humans causing shifts in temperature on par with previous extinction events".
There are really 4 or even 5 groups in this debate:
- The dictatorship engineers: Climate change is real and we'll all die if we don't install a government that has the nuts to kill off a massive amount of people today
- The social engineers: Climate change is real and we'll all die if we don't force people to completely eliminate all excesses today and live off the land. These people ignore the economic aspects of changing behaviors.
- The scientists: Our current model predicts a massive change, we don't know what that means or what will happen, but we probably have to do something
- The economic engineers: Climate change may be real but the market will fix it once it becomes an actual threat
- The climate change deniers: God would never let us die, therefore it isn't real.
Both ends of the spectrum will never get anywhere, however that's where the media concentrates as scientists just throw their hands up saying nobody wants to do anything, the answer is somewhere around market driven behavioral engineering in my opinion. Doomsday cults never go anywhere because too many people have cried wolf. NASA scientists 10 years ago said we'd all be living in a desolate wasteland by now and others did so 20 and 30 years ago, yes it was hyperbole, no scientists believed it but it made for a good news story and now even less people believe it.
The problem typically is IT folk that have no way what they are doing implementing rules that are impossible to follow and then people find workarounds because you either don't have sufficient support to help everyone solve their problems or you don't approve of solutions your IT department doesn't think up.
But Kodak never drove it and when the time came, they were too worried about protecting their film business.
It seems like the recreation here is actually an anonymous proxy. You can go to another website and it will send a query from the CERN servers.
You can pick up uranium ore of the ground, it gets stuck in your shoe and sets off sensors at the airport, it's a nuisance but it's not 'dangerous', people get more radiation working a few months on the ISS and I don't see Scott Kelly dying of radiation sickness or cancer.
Moreover this was (according to the article) kept in a bucket. Any harmful radiation from these sources can be held back by a sheet of paper.
If you need to staff a phone 5 days a week, going to 4 days makes no financial sense, you're just a warm body we want to keep in the seat as long as possible for the least amount of money.
For people that have a career, where work-life is important this may be of benefit, but then again, you're already salaried and the job market (at least right now) is wide open. I understand the stress, but people have to get more used to asking what THEY want out of a job.
In a lot of cases, it's failure to market the thing correctly. Kodak had a digital camera about 20 years too early (1975) but with very low quality and high price and nothing like the camera's we're used to today, they simply saw no market and didn't continue developing it.
Once you've been breached you're at least 2-3 years too late to contain the issue. These "nation states" hackers typically aren't the best in the field. They get in through inept security IT people above all else.
These companies have something to sell you - containment is a poor security strategy but sadly most companies won't invest until something happens so containment is their only strategy.
It can drive dual-4k displays, 6K is "only" ~6Gbps whereas the bus can push 40Gbps. Why wouldn't it be able?
This has been known for several years (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2909367/can-you-determine-if-chrome-is-in-incognito-mode-via-a-script)
There are plenty of other methods to check whether or not you're in incognito mode (http://www.collinjackson.com/research/private-browsing.pdf)
These businesses are just capturing what the market wants or can carry. What has really failed, especially in inner cities are both economic and social policies. When it's better for tax reasons to have a single parent family, you're going to drive the poor to single families which long-term causes both economic and social instability of all sorts. When you give people thousands of dollars per month in overvalued coupons every month to buy 'food' (typically sponsored by or limited to Nestle, Kellogg's, Dole products etc) you're going to create a black market which corner shops and dollar stores are really good at fulfilling the demand for. When we were on food stamps a few years ago, the total value of the 'checks' was $2500/month but at the regular grocery stores, the products were about half the price of the value of the stamp.
Just because Trump didn't close the loopholes doesn't mean it's his fault. The loopholes were there already, whoever implemented them is at fault.
Because these things happen before Apple finds out and revokes the certificate. Apple has no involvement with Enterprise apps, they don't distribute them. Until someone complains, they don't know, these "companies" also buy massive numbers of certificates under various names, not just one, when one gets revoked, they just buy and/or use another one
Not just auto repair, they also insure electronics, jewelry etc. wouldn't surprise me if they had a stake in all those phone warranty scams.
They do.
What you're proposing is a DRM scheme, none of them really work because you always need access to the code that is executing on your machine.
These cases, the user is basically circumventing the app store completely so there is nothing Apple can do to stop distributing these applications and the user that installs them is thoroughly warned that these enterprise connections allow the creator to pretty much push any configuration they want, whether it's rerouting all the traffic through a VPN or bricking the phone.
In many cases these certs are gotten by posing as a legitimate developer to Apple and then signing malware with it. They actually pay the $99, often with a stolen credit card and will even publish "legitimate" apps (often rebranded/recompiled crap) before starting a campaign.
Not necessarily, they may simply be reacting to consumer demand, much like a store owner does when he sees there are is a lot of demand, they may raise prices, if demand suddenly drops, they may lower prices. If your price fluctuates a lot, so do consumers so in the end you come to a mutual 'agreement' across all parties that works best for everyone (customers and providers) while still guaranteeing a profit.
What these people want is an algorithm that always goes in the customers' apparent/current best interest (lowest price possible) but this is impossible to sustain.
Since Blizzard was taken over by Activision, it's all about the profits. eSports isn't that much of a money generator, it promotes your game/brand and creates a fanbase but it doesn't immediately give you (the diminishing) millions of dollars like releasing Call of Duty 21 on XBox.
eSports and the 'classic' Blizzard (StarCraft, WarCraft and Diablo) games have a loyal following, but they're hard games to make and trying to monetize them with DLC (eg. Diablo 3) hasn't worked well because the fans expect a fully fleshed out game with consistent lore when you pay top dollar for the title/franchise, you don't expect a Blizzard game to take you out of the game every 5 minutes into the real world to remind you to spend real money. Even things like Heroes and Hearthstone with loads of DLC and a huge fan base are 'too much work' given the revenue it brings in and the revenue model is based on respectively cramming and gambling which has turned a lot of people off.
As if the mainstream media are even doing that these days. They're all about publishing op-eds with some items from their Reuters streams picked out.
I agree, my point was that although still fucked up, it's a lot better than China in the 20th century. The summary makes it sound like they've gotten worse - physically crushing dissent on public media is no longer acceptable in their society. They're still politically on the far left so squashing dissent is kind of the natural go-to (see Stalin, Cuba, Twitter etc) and a political necessity to keep those in power from being overthrown.
Where is the data that the Chinese government is doing worse than eg during Tiananmen. Sure they have cracked down on "dissent" but that's partially because we've been politically rather quiet the last few decades because we wanted them to purchase our debt. I think China is all around better off, even though their politics still suck, society there has become markedly more "liberal" although still very much far left.
NN in the Obama-sense of the word means regulating existing providers so new providers and actual competitions stands no chance to comply with the regulation.
I also want pre-2010 Net Neutrality which the tech world then defined as no messing (QoS or zero rating without my consent) with the traffic. Then Obama changed it to: sure zero rating is allowed as long as you have FTC overseeing what the FCC did. Then Trump completely removed those rules but left FCC oversight removed.