Seriously, people, your phones have back-doors, front-doors, compromised apps, malware, etc. on them and send data into insecure clouds. Do not trust your phones. The only way you could ever trust your phones was is there was strong legal protection for your data. There is not. Thanks to the raising authoritarians and proto-fascists in the West, there is the opposite.
What has that to do with anything? You have no argument and nothing worthwhile to contribute so you complain about something entirely different? Are you mentally challenged?
In the end, the signal is sent electrically and non-encrypted to the pixels. It can, at the very least, be captured in this step, with hardware that an advanced hobbyist can afford and build. This is known as the "analog hole" and nothing can be done about it unless everybody gets Digital Restriction Management hardware installed in their eyes. (Not that I would put that idea past the copyright Mafia.) Very likely it can be captured earlier.
Indeed. Of course the cell providers still try to gouge the customer, especially on roaming (happens a lot in Europe, lots of countries), but EU law will put an end to that pretty soon.
This is what naked capitalism looks like. The next time some schmuck advocates a market based solution, remind them of the cold calling menace, and ask how well that market self-regulation has worked.
I have had none this year and one last year. Unsolicited commercial call, that is. Robo-calls I never had a single one in my life. Of course, here the robo-caller pays a $50'000 fine per incident and repeat offenders may go to prison. Europe is a bit ahead of the US in these matters.
Probably nobody realized this was a "near crash". The messed up Boeing software keeps making things worse until the crash happens. If you catch it early, it will seem like a minor glitch.
If they caught this early on, they would not have known that this is a deadly design error. They would have thought this a manageable issue because they would not have seen the worst this system can do to a plane.
They probably did not expect the problem to be this deadly serious. After all, the 373 is a trusted and reliable design. That the Max 8 hat been turned into a death-trap by Boeing greed was not known back then.
This is a problem of an unsafe design that gives the pilots not enough time to diagnose the problem before it kills them. The extra pilot had that time because he was not flying. Also, Boeing not disclosing critical information is not a "training problem". It is a problem of a manufacturer lying by omission about a critical system to prevent the need for additional training. (Well, the _need_ stays, but nobody knows that...) At the very least criminally negligent homicide.
Pretty clearly I suggest that you cannot get hardware you can trust, so you should buy the best with regards to the other characteristics. I have no idea how you can not see that in my statement.
Well, it's kind of implicit in Trump's Huawei blockade that US hardware is trustworthy but Huawei's should be banned
Only if your mind is broken or you live in a reality exclusion zone. This is obviously a protectionist move, which strongly imply Huawei is superior and the US cannot compete on merit. Obviously "known to be compromised" is far worse than "suspected to be compromised". I really do not advise against Huawei here in any form. In all likely hood they have the superior offering and we just have to live with the network being not trustworthy with regards to spying because nobody has a better offer.
China is not very innovative or fast here. But the rest of the world is an unmitigated catastrophe. In a world of the incapable, the semi-competent is king. How did the West go so wrong?
Pretty clearly I suggest that you cannot get hardware you can trust, so you should buy the best with regards to the other characteristics. I have no idea how you can not see that in my statement.
All arguments against are complete nonsense. Competitors just do professional reverse engineering, for example, it is not that expensive or that much effort. They cannot use most of what they find for legal reasons, but they have the information. The "trade secret" argument is a complete lie, nothing else. Pretty much the same for the "less secure" devices argument.
What Apple (and others) do is artificial creation of a monopoly, nothing else. It is hugely profitable but it benefits absolutely nobody but them.
The comments you have made here have not even risen to Sec+ levels of competence.
Hahaha, funny. Certifications are for the clueless, I have stopped getting them. No, I do actual security, not paper-pushing. You know, that stuff that protects you, not the stuff that makes management feel good. And to blow your mind a bit further, I also teach IT security on the side.
I agree to most of that. Nice collection of reasons how humans as a group screw up again and again.
Although China is likely not a threat anymore, now that they have effectively a totalitarian dictatorship with a single infallible leader. They are polite about it, the leader is trying to appear restrained, but it is the same thing. And that is also one of the lessons from history: If things depend on a single person, that person gets corrupted (if not already) and things fail. China just has done away with their big chance for the next 100 years or so.
They die lie about the risks back then. They are lying now. That is my whole point. They took some theoretical calculations, which they knew were not reality and sold them as reality to the world. That is not acceptable in any way. And that is which Boeing has done now, although they seem to have sold these unrealistic calculations to themselves as well.
Risk management _starts_ with realistic estimations. Sure, they can have a large margin of error, but at least the error estimation _must_ be good. If you do not have them, all you can do is "hopeful engineering" and that is also not acceptable. You need to know. If you do not know, find out. And if you cannot find out, don't do high potential damage engineering until you know how to find out. That is why you respect established estimation methods. That is why you are very careful not to lie to yourself and understand how that happens. That is why you build and operate prototypes. And so on.
Incidentally, Chernobyl is _no_ exception. They did not have realistic risk estimations as to what could happen worst-case with these tests and how likely that was. It is a bit like the 737 max 8. The pilots were not warned before and then had very little time to find out what was going on and what to do and in two cases not that time was not enough. The whole thing is a system that is comprised of machine and man, not only one or the other. Competent safety-engineering recognizes that and bases its approaches on that. Machines cannot ever be fully safe on their own, the operators may just have a need to do something the machine cannot recognize as valid in that situation. At the same time, the operators must know what they can safely do and what not and how to react to all realistically possible emergencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, people, your phones have back-doors, front-doors, compromised apps, malware, etc. on them and send data into insecure clouds. Do not trust your phones. The only way you could ever trust your phones was is there was strong legal protection for your data. There is not. Thanks to the raising authoritarians and proto-fascists in the West, there is the opposite.
It is not. It is what the actual experts tell everybody. Please shut up.
Beoing's CEO, the FAA chief, and others need to be fired.
That is far too friendly. A long prison term would be more like it and appropriate to the damage they have done.
They eventually have to sell you something. That is when you get them. Also, they will pay the long-distance charges.
But the details do not matter. This works here and in the US is does not. That is what matters in the end.
What has that to do with anything? You have no argument and nothing worthwhile to contribute so you complain about something entirely different? Are you mentally challenged?
In the end, the signal is sent electrically and non-encrypted to the pixels. It can, at the very least, be captured in this step, with hardware that an advanced hobbyist can afford and build. This is known as the "analog hole" and nothing can be done about it unless everybody gets Digital Restriction Management hardware installed in their eyes. (Not that I would put that idea past the copyright Mafia.) Very likely it can be captured earlier.
Already effective? I thought 2020. My mistake.
Indeed. Of course the cell providers still try to gouge the customer, especially on roaming (happens a lot in Europe, lots of countries), but EU law will put an end to that pretty soon.
This is what naked capitalism looks like. The next time some schmuck advocates a market based solution, remind them of the cold calling menace, and ask how well that market self-regulation has worked.
Indeed. Horrible.
Last time I checked, the US was a democracy...
You have no case. You did not even understand what I was saying. But what can you expect from an AC moron...
Also, since when is that standard for moral behavior "having gotten caught in the last 10 years"?
I have had none this year and one last year. Unsolicited commercial call, that is. Robo-calls I never had a single one in my life. Of course, here the robo-caller pays a $50'000 fine per incident and repeat offenders may go to prison. Europe is a bit ahead of the US in these matters.
Also, this is correlation, not causation and the numbers are pretty weak.
Please do so.
Probably nobody realized this was a "near crash". The messed up Boeing software keeps making things worse until the crash happens. If you catch it early, it will seem like a minor glitch.
If they caught this early on, they would not have known that this is a deadly design error. They would have thought this a manageable issue because they would not have seen the worst this system can do to a plane.
They probably did not expect the problem to be this deadly serious. After all, the 373 is a trusted and reliable design. That the Max 8 hat been turned into a death-trap by Boeing greed was not known back then.
This is a problem of an unsafe design that gives the pilots not enough time to diagnose the problem before it kills them. The extra pilot had that time because he was not flying. Also, Boeing not disclosing critical information is not a "training problem". It is a problem of a manufacturer lying by omission about a critical system to prevent the need for additional training. (Well, the _need_ stays, but nobody knows that...) At the very least criminally negligent homicide.
Pretty clearly I suggest that you cannot get hardware you can trust, so you should buy the best with regards to the other characteristics. I have no idea how you can not see that in my statement.
Well, it's kind of implicit in Trump's Huawei blockade that US hardware is trustworthy but Huawei's should be banned
Only if your mind is broken or you live in a reality exclusion zone. This is obviously a protectionist move, which strongly imply Huawei is superior and the US cannot compete on merit. Obviously "known to be compromised" is far worse than "suspected to be compromised". I really do not advise against Huawei here in any form. In all likely hood they have the superior offering and we just have to live with the network being not trustworthy with regards to spying because nobody has a better offer.
China is not very innovative or fast here. But the rest of the world is an unmitigated catastrophe. In a world of the incapable, the semi-competent is king. How did the West go so wrong?
Pretty clearly I suggest that you cannot get hardware you can trust, so you should buy the best with regards to the other characteristics. I have no idea how you can not see that in my statement.
All arguments against are complete nonsense. Competitors just do professional reverse engineering, for example, it is not that expensive or that much effort. They cannot use most of what they find for legal reasons, but they have the information. The "trade secret" argument is a complete lie, nothing else. Pretty much the same for the "less secure" devices argument.
What Apple (and others) do is artificial creation of a monopoly, nothing else. It is hugely profitable but it benefits absolutely nobody but them.
The comments you have made here have not even risen to Sec+ levels of competence.
Hahaha, funny. Certifications are for the clueless, I have stopped getting them. No, I do actual security, not paper-pushing. You know, that stuff that protects you, not the stuff that makes management feel good. And to blow your mind a bit further, I also teach IT security on the side.
I agree to most of that. Nice collection of reasons how humans as a group screw up again and again.
Although China is likely not a threat anymore, now that they have effectively a totalitarian dictatorship with a single infallible leader. They are polite about it, the leader is trying to appear restrained, but it is the same thing. And that is also one of the lessons from history: If things depend on a single person, that person gets corrupted (if not already) and things fail. China just has done away with their big chance for the next 100 years or so.
They die lie about the risks back then. They are lying now. That is my whole point. They took some theoretical calculations, which they knew were not reality and sold them as reality to the world. That is not acceptable in any way. And that is which Boeing has done now, although they seem to have sold these unrealistic calculations to themselves as well.
Risk management _starts_ with realistic estimations. Sure, they can have a large margin of error, but at least the error estimation _must_ be good. If you do not have them, all you can do is "hopeful engineering" and that is also not acceptable. You need to know. If you do not know, find out. And if you cannot find out, don't do high potential damage engineering until you know how to find out. That is why you respect established estimation methods. That is why you are very careful not to lie to yourself and understand how that happens. That is why you build and operate prototypes. And so on.
Incidentally, Chernobyl is _no_ exception. They did not have realistic risk estimations as to what could happen worst-case with these tests and how likely that was. It is a bit like the 737 max 8. The pilots were not warned before and then had very little time to find out what was going on and what to do and in two cases not that time was not enough. The whole thing is a system that is comprised of machine and man, not only one or the other. Competent safety-engineering recognizes that and bases its approaches on that. Machines cannot ever be fully safe on their own, the operators may just have a need to do something the machine cannot recognize as valid in that situation. At the same time, the operators must know what they can safely do and what not and how to react to all realistically possible emergencies.