I should be allowed to make that choice, and I cannot.
If you actually thought you should be allowed to make that choice, you'd have chosen software that respects you freedom and lets you make whatever choices you want.
There are a wide variety of choices that respect your freedom.
This is an empty argument. Historically, Windows has allowed users to do whatever they pretty much want, including disabling built-in "protection" measures, such as the built-in firewall, built-in virus protection, built-in warnings to make backups periodically. All that stuff, it was all tuneable in Windows 7 and every Windows prior to 7.
It's only with 8 and 10 are we seeing choices taken away. Which I get, I get that most people who use Windows computers have no flippin' clue what they're doing, and Windows needs to make some hard choices for them (because end-users are notoriously good at making the wrong choices.)
What annoys me, is power users like myself, whom do know what they're doing are now prohibited from making choices that fit our own usage of the system. Yes I could choose to use Linux (FWIW, I do dual-boot, and use Linux whenever I can cuz it's just soooo much faster), but I choose my video games, and while Steam is getting better with Linux support, still not there, still can't play all my games. I have made a choice that works for me. And I still have the freedom to change my choice, so I dunno what you're trying to prove with that reply. It's meaningless.
There is nothing wrong with C/C++ and it's rather powerful implementations of memory management. The only thing wrong here is sloppy programmers who seem incompetent enough to forget to add simple bounds checking to their code.
I find it annoying how many AV products identify key-generators, cracks and other actually useful non-malicious stuff as malicious and bad.
I also find it a complete waste of cpu time to run real-time protections. I'm particularly offended there is no way to remove Windows Defender from Windows 10. I should be allowed to make that choice, and I cannot.
As to the others, most AV products are snake-oil at best, their own type of malware at worst. Millions of dollars sucked out of clueless consumers for nothing.
If you live in a city or town that is over crowded, streets bursting at the seams with heavy traffic and all that.. then yeah..
But if you live in an average city, with average traffic, population and all that, the car can't be beat. Sorry.
Move somewhere with less people. Building tall for human cities doesn't work too good in the long run. Better to sprawl out. But stop putting all the jobs in concentrated areas, spread those out too!
I'm quite pleased to see this. Apple playing games is only going to hurt them in the long run.
So I'm very happy to see Apple tightening the screws on their gear, making it harder to get your hands on their garbage. Feed them all to the shredder, I say.
Keep it up Apple, continue to be unfriendly to your customers, ratchet it up, keep pissing people off. It makes me delighted.
Maybe content creators need to set up something similar to how Ultraviolet works, where a centralized database is maintained, which keeps track of who has access to which content. You pick the stream provider, attach your account, and stream content you have access to.
Seems to work great for movies using UV. I remember when Flixster died off, instead of losing all my content I had on Flixster, I just moved over to Vudu and they provide access to all the content I have under UV's system.
This was because the underlying licensing was done through Ultraviolet. Perhaps this system should be widened to include more content, and stream providers.
If content creators offer a streaming service, people complain there's too many service providers, and piracy ensues.
If all the content creators glom on to one major provider, then they get accused of collusion and price fixing. Piracy ensues again.
If they opt to not provide any streaming for specific content, then they are accused of holding back content, and providing justification for piracy. The lack-of-access issue. And of course, piracy ensues.
This is a good use case for all those cheap VPN services out there. I wouldn't count on them to protect your privacy much, but it's another layer someone has to peel to figure out you're pirating stuff. Switch between services frequently perhaps. Certainly easier than switching ISPs. Hell run more than one at a time, just to really confuse the spooks.
Piracy always finds a way, this is a meaningless futile gesture by AT&T.
If you need SSD performance it's the only option. VeraCrypt is fantastic but there is a major performance hit, especially if you disable AES acceleration because if you don't trust the SSD presumably you don't trust that either.
Not sure I can agree with this. Computer performance has been steadily (if slowly) improving, especially in the multi-core arena. I can tell you, I barely notice the presence of LUKS of all my linux machines. If there's a performance hit to LUKS, I can barely feel it.
One metric of TrueCrypt I can report for sure: There's no difference between a USB 3.0 device raw formatted and TrueCrypt formatted. You get the same speed read/write performance, which is the limit of USB 3.0, so the device + crypt is saturating USB 3.0.
On SSD's, yes for the die-hard max performance, encryption may shave a few percentage points off your performance. Just have to ask yourself, is this worth it? I can't really agree that the performance hit from encrypted volumes is 'major' anymore. A little hit is the best I'll give in to.
As a side note, I'm pretty such some encryption implementations can take advantage of built-in crypto whatnots in modern CPU's to help it do the processing. I would say this probably ok and secure, since the software is holding all the cards. I know BitLocker does, cuz I had that get enabled (Yes, Windows 10 just turned it on one day, out of no where. Gotta love microsoft!) on an Atom-based tablet I use sometimes, and you can't even tell the difference with bitlocker on or off, so it's got to be using some hardware assist to keep the speed up.
And when you go to Truecrypt's website it will suggest you instead use Bitlocker and even provide instructions for you to do so.
Microsoft's BitLocker is insecure. It's fricking MICROSOFT for gods sake. They couldn't secure something if their life depended on it. Also, backdoors, non-open source code that can't be audited. BitLocker is no better than built-in drive encryption: Ie worthless.
I wouldn't ever trust a drive's "self-encryption" whatnots. Do it yourself, with tools you know and trust, like TrueCrypt (yes it still works fine.), LUKS, VeraCrypt (have not tried this one.) or whatever else you fancy. Never trust the manufacturers solution, it's probably backdoored even if it wasn't easily exploitable as this suggests.
This really surprised me. I was under the impression, using a smartphone was a feat of manual dexterity in itself. They're not particularly easy to type on, for instance.
Would be nice if we had more research into why smartphone usage inhibits finer motor control for other activities. In my perspective, this doesn't really make a lot of sense.
In lay terms, the attack works by running a malicious process next to legitimate ones using SMT's parallel thread running capabilities.
Once again, we are presented with an 'exploit' that requires one to have compromised the target already, rendering this as a "Why bother? You're already inside."
This feels more like bashing Intel than anything else at this point.
It's probably a good thing that it sucks. We're bad enough with our phone addictions. Imagine how the world will be when VR is as good as Hollywood has portrayed it numerous times. We'd never wanna leave.
A self driving car should protect its passengers first or they wouldn't sell. Who would willingly ride in a vehicle that would intentionally sacrifice their life for any reason?
This is great, I had the exact opposite conclusion. The passengers of the vehicle signed up for the risk, the pedestrians did not. So peds whom are not invested in the risk of using a self-driving car should be spared over the passengers if there's a choice to be made about who lives or dies.
No worries, the Giant Tech companies are not responsible for what people say on their platforms. Really this is good news.
You keep up that spirit my friend. But the world has spoken, and will speak again, this kind of radical thought that is obviously leading to radical behavior, we won't tolerate it, and we will pull the rug out from under you if you don't clean up the act.
Free Markets working as they should, for once. Legally, yes, 'Big Tech' isn't responsible for your shit posting, but morally... some of them are making a stand. FINALLY. There is simply no place for this in our world.
For a long time, Microsoft was the main enemy of users' freedom, and then, for the past ten years or so, it's been Apple. When the first iThings came out, around 2007, it was a tremendous advance in contempt for users' freedom because it imposed censorship of applications -- you could only install programs approved by Apple. Ironically, Apple has retreated from that a little bit.
Microsoft is still very much public enemy #1 in my book. Mostly because they're trying to emulate the very worst of Apple.
Apple has always been the butt of computer jokes and funny looks when people say they use an Apple computer. I remember back in the 90's if you said something along those lines, you basically got the look of 'that's not a computer dude.' That's the non-computer-people computer that is hilariously bad.
Apple would still be in this exact same place if not for the wild popularity of their stupid MP3 player, then their annoying phones. Their computers are still shit, always have been. They just got lucky with the MP3 player and phones, which gave them a huge boost in reputation. It's dwindling down FAST, because at the core, Apple is a really ugly nasty company with serious control issues.
As to morality, I don't really quite follow how this word or what it implies has any bearing on computer software.
As to censorship, of course this would happen. This is precisely why I really flew off the handle at Apple fanbois cuz fucking Jobs and his wretched App store.
WORST IDEA EVER. I'm sorry, sure it's handy and easy to get apps, but you sell your soul for that handiness. Apple has been doing this for..ever. Microsoft didn't seem to care what runs on their OS. Hell, back in the day, anytime a company made a really cool Windows application that Microsoft really liked, they just bought that company and started shipping the product with Windows (Stacker? Netscape/IE?), and frankly, I think they still don't care, they're just trying to be like Apple cuz they're deluded themselves into thinking Apple's OS is cool or something. It's not. </rant>
Don't run questionable servers in a way that it can be traced back to your physical self.
It really sucks that the law is failing the common citizen, but at the same time, he did create this entire situation all on his lonesome. My sympathy is limited.
Perhaps these updates need to be split out so so that users can install them individually, with notification of the expected performance hit that the update would give?
We've been down this road before. Users cannot be trusted to make informed decisions regarding which updates to install, and which to avoid. This is precisely why Microsoft has shifted from user-controlled updates to "you will update when we say so." Because users can't be trusted to make the right choices. How could they? Most people have no flippin' clue.
The unfortunate side-effect of aiming things toward the masses is the people like pretty much everyone on this site, whom do have a clue, are stuck with the end-user experience that forces us to do updates we know are stupid and unnecessary.
If the manufacturers are intentionally releasing updates that have a goal of degrading performance on a device, yes, that should be discouraged.
However, if a manufacturer releases an update that is just patches, fixes, new features, what have you, without the intention of degrading performance on a device, but instead as a side effect of the changes, the device's performance is degraded, then we have to say, that's ok.
It would be pretty absurd to expect a old device to run the newest software. This is nothing new in the PC world at least, I certainly wouldn't expect a 486 or Pentium to run Windows 10 all nice and usable.
It would be equally absurd to expect manufacturers from holding back updates that may correct security issues, or other critical bugs. Those updates might degrade performance.
I'm not entire sure I'm comfortable with a court making the call on which side of this fence the update falls on. Intentional performance loss, or just side effect of updates? There'd have to be some pretty solid evidence of the former if it's going to be the call. Apple is definitely guilty of this, among a plethora of other shady activities.
They described a lot of different aspect that give a particular 3D printer some sort of unique fingerprint.. so what's to stop someone from doing the deed, then discarding one of the parts and replacing it, like I dunno.. the nozzel?
This research into method to identify the source printer of a particular 3D printed object seems pretty unintelligent. Did they even consider how easy it would be to mess with your device to make it's 'fingerprint' change?
I'd go as far to say, as a 3D printer gets used, it's signature or fingerprint will drift over time just from regular wear and tear, without any active measures to alter that signature.
If it's this trivial to alter the signature, then this research is pretty much garbage. Only congrats I'm offering is one for duping people out of $$$ to conduct this study. Good job!
I really don't understand this kind of thing. It's just fine to see the most horrific violence imaginable, but you can't see someone's penis or breasts. What the hell?
Is it just me, or would the more ideal world be where this is completely reversed?
Slashdot Mirror
I should be allowed to make that choice, and I cannot.
If you actually thought you should be allowed to make that choice, you'd have chosen software that respects you freedom and lets you make whatever choices you want.
There are a wide variety of choices that respect your freedom.
This is an empty argument. Historically, Windows has allowed users to do whatever they pretty much want, including disabling built-in "protection" measures, such as the built-in firewall, built-in virus protection, built-in warnings to make backups periodically. All that stuff, it was all tuneable in Windows 7 and every Windows prior to 7.
It's only with 8 and 10 are we seeing choices taken away. Which I get, I get that most people who use Windows computers have no flippin' clue what they're doing, and Windows needs to make some hard choices for them (because end-users are notoriously good at making the wrong choices.)
What annoys me, is power users like myself, whom do know what they're doing are now prohibited from making choices that fit our own usage of the system. Yes I could choose to use Linux (FWIW, I do dual-boot, and use Linux whenever I can cuz it's just soooo much faster), but I choose my video games, and while Steam is getting better with Linux support, still not there, still can't play all my games. I have made a choice that works for me. And I still have the freedom to change my choice, so I dunno what you're trying to prove with that reply. It's meaningless.
There is nothing wrong with C/C++ and it's rather powerful implementations of memory management. The only thing wrong here is sloppy programmers who seem incompetent enough to forget to add simple bounds checking to their code.
Quit blaming the tools.
I find it annoying how many AV products identify key-generators, cracks and other actually useful non-malicious stuff as malicious and bad.
I also find it a complete waste of cpu time to run real-time protections. I'm particularly offended there is no way to remove Windows Defender from Windows 10. I should be allowed to make that choice, and I cannot.
As to the others, most AV products are snake-oil at best, their own type of malware at worst. Millions of dollars sucked out of clueless consumers for nothing.
I imagine that smaller settlement includes a declaration of bankruptcy by the couple. What else could one do in such a situation?
If you live in a city or town that is over crowded, streets bursting at the seams with heavy traffic and all that.. then yeah..
But if you live in an average city, with average traffic, population and all that, the car can't be beat. Sorry.
Move somewhere with less people. Building tall for human cities doesn't work too good in the long run. Better to sprawl out. But stop putting all the jobs in concentrated areas, spread those out too!
I'm quite pleased to see this. Apple playing games is only going to hurt them in the long run.
So I'm very happy to see Apple tightening the screws on their gear, making it harder to get your hands on their garbage. Feed them all to the shredder, I say.
Keep it up Apple, continue to be unfriendly to your customers, ratchet it up, keep pissing people off. It makes me delighted.
Maybe content creators need to set up something similar to how Ultraviolet works, where a centralized database is maintained, which keeps track of who has access to which content. You pick the stream provider, attach your account, and stream content you have access to.
Seems to work great for movies using UV. I remember when Flixster died off, instead of losing all my content I had on Flixster, I just moved over to Vudu and they provide access to all the content I have under UV's system.
This was because the underlying licensing was done through Ultraviolet. Perhaps this system should be widened to include more content, and stream providers.
This is a case of there's no winning.
If content creators offer a streaming service, people complain there's too many service providers, and piracy ensues.
If all the content creators glom on to one major provider, then they get accused of collusion and price fixing. Piracy ensues again.
If they opt to not provide any streaming for specific content, then they are accused of holding back content, and providing justification for piracy. The lack-of-access issue. And of course, piracy ensues.
Is there any way to win?
This is a good use case for all those cheap VPN services out there. I wouldn't count on them to protect your privacy much, but it's another layer someone has to peel to figure out you're pirating stuff. Switch between services frequently perhaps. Certainly easier than switching ISPs. Hell run more than one at a time, just to really confuse the spooks.
Piracy always finds a way, this is a meaningless futile gesture by AT&T.
If you need SSD performance it's the only option. VeraCrypt is fantastic but there is a major performance hit, especially if you disable AES acceleration because if you don't trust the SSD presumably you don't trust that either.
Not sure I can agree with this. Computer performance has been steadily (if slowly) improving, especially in the multi-core arena. I can tell you, I barely notice the presence of LUKS of all my linux machines. If there's a performance hit to LUKS, I can barely feel it.
One metric of TrueCrypt I can report for sure: There's no difference between a USB 3.0 device raw formatted and TrueCrypt formatted. You get the same speed read/write performance, which is the limit of USB 3.0, so the device + crypt is saturating USB 3.0.
On SSD's, yes for the die-hard max performance, encryption may shave a few percentage points off your performance. Just have to ask yourself, is this worth it? I can't really agree that the performance hit from encrypted volumes is 'major' anymore. A little hit is the best I'll give in to.
As a side note, I'm pretty such some encryption implementations can take advantage of built-in crypto whatnots in modern CPU's to help it do the processing. I would say this probably ok and secure, since the software is holding all the cards. I know BitLocker does, cuz I had that get enabled (Yes, Windows 10 just turned it on one day, out of no where. Gotta love microsoft!) on an Atom-based tablet I use sometimes, and you can't even tell the difference with bitlocker on or off, so it's got to be using some hardware assist to keep the speed up.
And when you go to Truecrypt's website it will suggest you instead use Bitlocker and even provide instructions for you to do so.
Microsoft's BitLocker is insecure. It's fricking MICROSOFT for gods sake. They couldn't secure something if their life depended on it. Also, backdoors, non-open source code that can't be audited. BitLocker is no better than built-in drive encryption: Ie worthless.
I wouldn't ever trust a drive's "self-encryption" whatnots. Do it yourself, with tools you know and trust, like TrueCrypt (yes it still works fine.), LUKS, VeraCrypt (have not tried this one.) or whatever else you fancy. Never trust the manufacturers solution, it's probably backdoored even if it wasn't easily exploitable as this suggests.
This really surprised me. I was under the impression, using a smartphone was a feat of manual dexterity in itself. They're not particularly easy to type on, for instance.
Would be nice if we had more research into why smartphone usage inhibits finer motor control for other activities. In my perspective, this doesn't really make a lot of sense.
In lay terms, the attack works by running a malicious process next to legitimate ones using SMT's parallel thread running capabilities.
Once again, we are presented with an 'exploit' that requires one to have compromised the target already, rendering this as a "Why bother? You're already inside."
This feels more like bashing Intel than anything else at this point.
I'd be shocked if _any_ parent bought a car from company 1.
I'd be shocked if we even allowed a vehicle to prioritize passenger safety over innocent bystander safety.
It's probably a good thing that it sucks. We're bad enough with our phone addictions. Imagine how the world will be when VR is as good as Hollywood has portrayed it numerous times. We'd never wanna leave.
A self driving car should protect its passengers first or they wouldn't sell. Who would willingly ride in a vehicle that would intentionally sacrifice their life for any reason?
This is great, I had the exact opposite conclusion. The passengers of the vehicle signed up for the risk, the pedestrians did not. So peds whom are not invested in the risk of using a self-driving car should be spared over the passengers if there's a choice to be made about who lives or dies.
No worries, the Giant Tech companies are not responsible for what people say on their platforms. Really this is good news.
You keep up that spirit my friend. But the world has spoken, and will speak again, this kind of radical thought that is obviously leading to radical behavior, we won't tolerate it, and we will pull the rug out from under you if you don't clean up the act.
Free Markets working as they should, for once. Legally, yes, 'Big Tech' isn't responsible for your shit posting, but morally... some of them are making a stand. FINALLY. There is simply no place for this in our world.
For a long time, Microsoft was the main enemy of users' freedom, and then, for the past ten years or so, it's been Apple. When the first iThings came out, around 2007, it was a tremendous advance in contempt for users' freedom because it imposed censorship of applications -- you could only install programs approved by Apple. Ironically, Apple has retreated from that a little bit.
Microsoft is still very much public enemy #1 in my book. Mostly because they're trying to emulate the very worst of Apple.
Apple has always been the butt of computer jokes and funny looks when people say they use an Apple computer. I remember back in the 90's if you said something along those lines, you basically got the look of 'that's not a computer dude.' That's the non-computer-people computer that is hilariously bad.
Apple would still be in this exact same place if not for the wild popularity of their stupid MP3 player, then their annoying phones. Their computers are still shit, always have been. They just got lucky with the MP3 player and phones, which gave them a huge boost in reputation. It's dwindling down FAST, because at the core, Apple is a really ugly nasty company with serious control issues.
As to morality, I don't really quite follow how this word or what it implies has any bearing on computer software.
As to censorship, of course this would happen. This is precisely why I really flew off the handle at Apple fanbois cuz fucking Jobs and his wretched App store.
WORST IDEA EVER. I'm sorry, sure it's handy and easy to get apps, but you sell your soul for that handiness. Apple has been doing this for..ever. Microsoft didn't seem to care what runs on their OS. Hell, back in the day, anytime a company made a really cool Windows application that Microsoft really liked, they just bought that company and started shipping the product with Windows (Stacker? Netscape/IE?), and frankly, I think they still don't care, they're just trying to be like Apple cuz they're deluded themselves into thinking Apple's OS is cool or something. It's not.
</rant>
Don't run questionable servers in a way that it can be traced back to your physical self.
It really sucks that the law is failing the common citizen, but at the same time, he did create this entire situation all on his lonesome. My sympathy is limited.
Perhaps these updates need to be split out so so that users can install them individually, with notification of the expected performance hit that the update would give?
We've been down this road before. Users cannot be trusted to make informed decisions regarding which updates to install, and which to avoid. This is precisely why Microsoft has shifted from user-controlled updates to "you will update when we say so." Because users can't be trusted to make the right choices. How could they? Most people have no flippin' clue.
The unfortunate side-effect of aiming things toward the masses is the people like pretty much everyone on this site, whom do have a clue, are stuck with the end-user experience that forces us to do updates we know are stupid and unnecessary.
If the manufacturers are intentionally releasing updates that have a goal of degrading performance on a device, yes, that should be discouraged.
However, if a manufacturer releases an update that is just patches, fixes, new features, what have you, without the intention of degrading performance on a device, but instead as a side effect of the changes, the device's performance is degraded, then we have to say, that's ok.
It would be pretty absurd to expect a old device to run the newest software. This is nothing new in the PC world at least, I certainly wouldn't expect a 486 or Pentium to run Windows 10 all nice and usable.
It would be equally absurd to expect manufacturers from holding back updates that may correct security issues, or other critical bugs. Those updates might degrade performance.
I'm not entire sure I'm comfortable with a court making the call on which side of this fence the update falls on. Intentional performance loss, or just side effect of updates? There'd have to be some pretty solid evidence of the former if it's going to be the call. Apple is definitely guilty of this, among a plethora of other shady activities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They described a lot of different aspect that give a particular 3D printer some sort of unique fingerprint.. so what's to stop someone from doing the deed, then discarding one of the parts and replacing it, like I dunno.. the nozzel?
This research into method to identify the source printer of a particular 3D printed object seems pretty unintelligent. Did they even consider how easy it would be to mess with your device to make it's 'fingerprint' change?
I'd go as far to say, as a 3D printer gets used, it's signature or fingerprint will drift over time just from regular wear and tear, without any active measures to alter that signature.
If it's this trivial to alter the signature, then this research is pretty much garbage. Only congrats I'm offering is one for duping people out of $$$ to conduct this study. Good job!
I really don't understand this kind of thing. It's just fine to see the most horrific violence imaginable, but you can't see someone's penis or breasts. What the hell?
Is it just me, or would the more ideal world be where this is completely reversed?