What are you talking about "continue to verify"? There has been no verification _at_ _all_ at this time. Just the same team likely making the same measurement error time and again. That is not "verification".
And before that, there is the little task of establishing _that_ it works, which has not nearly been completed at this time. Let at the very least two other independent teams confirm the findings with different measurement set-ups (to have the error sources behave differently) and similar results and then we maybe will have something that is actually worthy of study. At this time, this is nothing but an anomaly, with an unknown source that is exceptionally likely to be a subtle flaw in the experimental set-up.
And in other news, just because of that it is exceptionally unlikely to actually work and some not yet discovered measurement error is exceptionally likely to be the actual reason for the observed thrust.
You do not understand what you are talking about. First, it is unclear whether it really works, and it is still quite unlikely that it does. Second, it generates an exceptionally small thrust requiring a lot of energy. Even if it should, against all odds, turn out to work, as it is at the moment it is unusable for any real applications. Its performance would be just far, far too bad.
At this time, there is one prototype for lab measurements, and it is unclear whether it actually works. As there is no theory for its operation, it is highly likely that they just have not found the source of a measurement error yet. With the exceptionally small thrust they observe, there is an exceptionally large number of possible sources of error. Why anybody would think at this time that this is sure to be viable is beyond me.
Very much this. And it is pretty clear that in science there are no gender-based barriers to entry or advancement. These votes are about scientists. Gender is immaterial. As long as equal opportunity is a given, any "gender imbalance" is at best a thing to study, but most decidedly not something to correct. What they do is basically in the same moral level of faking statistical results in a scientific publication and entirely despicable.
Indeed. Way to destroy quality in science, if merely having a different genetic makeup suddenly means you can be less competent. This is beyond stupid.
There are less exceptional female scientists. That is a fact and it does not stem from females having to work harder. It stems from fewer of them being willing to work hard in this area. That the ones that do are on-par simply means this is not a discrimination issue. Deal with it.
Also, unworthy of any institution claiming to respect science. Correcting the result of an application of a metric is about the most stupid and unscientific thing possible. Any halfway competent scientist knows that.
Nice one! That is why I do not only have good-quality paper and a good-quality printer at hand, but also high-quality toiled-paper. Investment is next to nothing in both cases, but there is a significant increase in user satisfaction.
Offices are a construct that defines "work time", the completely broken metric by which we allocate "wages". I have not had an office in more than 8 years, because I actually bill time to my employer (who is completely fine with that, because he rather has me being productive where and when I want than paying me for staring out the office window...), and that works to some degree. Of course, billing work-results would be better, but only very few people have the skills and integrity for that to work.
Paper still has some important properties that electronic forms cannot even begin to match. From the abysmal state of data security, reliability and long-term persistence and the still primitive user interface of modern computers, I deduce that we will not have a working and paper-equivalent "paperless office" in the next few decades. This is "too much too early", the mark of the amateur.
Note that I do not mind. I have high-quality paper, a nice printer and a whiteboard right on hand, and they serve just fine. The desires for a "paperless office" are misplaced. Even if it becomes a reality, it is not fundamentally superior. This is just another deluded fantasy by people that do not understand what technology can and cannot do.
Indeed. And if you roll your own initramfs, which is not difficult with some grasp of UNIX shell-scripting, you can have exactly the failure-behavior you want. 100 lines of code is already a long one. Of course, there are now a lot of Windows refugees and they often cannot do any shell-scripting at all and are dependent on the distro-scripts being secure. But such people have no business administrating a security-critical Linux system anyways.
And fail. This is not a LUKS vulnerability. This is a vulnerability of the boot-script added by the distribution. Loop-AES will have exactly the same (mostly non-issue) with this script.
Indeed. You basically get the same as booting a rescue-system or removing the disk and accessing it directly gets you. In all, but a few very special set-ups, this means this is not actually a vulnerability or a bug that needs fixing. However, in these few very special set-ups, the standard distro-mechanisms are not enough to protect you anyways and if you rely on them, you have bigger problems than a root-shell with an unlocked encrypted root partition.
This is not worthy of a CVE. My guess is some big egos with rather small skills are at work here.
Indeed. Some laptops have these switches, but you are never sure whether it is something controlled in firmware or actually "hard wired", i.e. sabotage is not possible by way of software. I think I will start to physically disconnect these microphones in the future.
Cameras are easy: A bit of quality black electrical tape, easily removed later, and they are blind. Microphones are far more difficult. You basically have to blind them with excessive noise or disconnect them. Since the internal microphones of laptops are never very good, I will start doing that for mine, no loss. And the microphone on my main computer is only plugged in when I use it.
Smartphones, on the other hand, are a problem here. I still have one with a removable battery (only way to be really sure it is off), and I will keep it that way as long as possible.
Nothing is simple when you have an "Enterprise" IT. (This means it takes as long to get anything changed as it would take you to manually shift the starship Enterprise by pushing with your hands.)
Indeed. Ethernet is the general-purpose, cheap and reliable solution. Do not add features to it to make it a specialized network technology. That is just plain dumb.
Indeed. Thieves after money have zero motivation to harm anybody with these explosives. In fact, a run-of-the mill car is probably equally dangerous and we do not break out in mindless panic if somebody is using one of those.
Not everybody is a fearful, panicky American. The comment by the police here is right on the mark for sane people. They actually understand the situation and are not spooked by mere keywords. And yes, this is funny.
Ethernet works well if you have over-provisioning. It is simple, almost zero-configuration, robust and reliable. This really bad idea would destroy all these characteristics. Why some (really bad) engineers cannot stay the hell away from things that work well is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about "continue to verify"? There has been no verification _at_ _all_ at this time. Just the same team likely making the same measurement error time and again. That is not "verification".
And before that, there is the little task of establishing _that_ it works, which has not nearly been completed at this time. Let at the very least two other independent teams confirm the findings with different measurement set-ups (to have the error sources behave differently) and similar results and then we maybe will have something that is actually worthy of study. At this time, this is nothing but an anomaly, with an unknown source that is exceptionally likely to be a subtle flaw in the experimental set-up.
And in other news, just because of that it is exceptionally unlikely to actually work and some not yet discovered measurement error is exceptionally likely to be the actual reason for the observed thrust.
You do not understand what you are talking about. First, it is unclear whether it really works, and it is still quite unlikely that it does. Second, it generates an exceptionally small thrust requiring a lot of energy. Even if it should, against all odds, turn out to work, as it is at the moment it is unusable for any real applications. Its performance would be just far, far too bad.
At this time, there is one prototype for lab measurements, and it is unclear whether it actually works. As there is no theory for its operation, it is highly likely that they just have not found the source of a measurement error yet. With the exceptionally small thrust they observe, there is an exceptionally large number of possible sources of error. Why anybody would think at this time that this is sure to be viable is beyond me.
Very much this. And it is pretty clear that in science there are no gender-based barriers to entry or advancement. These votes are about scientists. Gender is immaterial. As long as equal opportunity is a given, any "gender imbalance" is at best a thing to study, but most decidedly not something to correct. What they do is basically in the same moral level of faking statistical results in a scientific publication and entirely despicable.
Indeed. Way to destroy quality in science, if merely having a different genetic makeup suddenly means you can be less competent. This is beyond stupid.
There are less exceptional female scientists. That is a fact and it does not stem from females having to work harder. It stems from fewer of them being willing to work hard in this area. That the ones that do are on-par simply means this is not a discrimination issue. Deal with it.
Also, unworthy of any institution claiming to respect science. Correcting the result of an application of a metric is about the most stupid and unscientific thing possible. Any halfway competent scientist knows that.
Nice one! That is why I do not only have good-quality paper and a good-quality printer at hand, but also high-quality toiled-paper. Investment is next to nothing in both cases, but there is a significant increase in user satisfaction.
Offices are a construct that defines "work time", the completely broken metric by which we allocate "wages". I have not had an office in more than 8 years, because I actually bill time to my employer (who is completely fine with that, because he rather has me being productive where and when I want than paying me for staring out the office window...), and that works to some degree. Of course, billing work-results would be better, but only very few people have the skills and integrity for that to work.
As you need humans at least at the start and end of any meaningful process, this will not happen.
Paper still has some important properties that electronic forms cannot even begin to match. From the abysmal state of data security, reliability and long-term persistence and the still primitive user interface of modern computers, I deduce that we will not have a working and paper-equivalent "paperless office" in the next few decades. This is "too much too early", the mark of the amateur.
Note that I do not mind. I have high-quality paper, a nice printer and a whiteboard right on hand, and they serve just fine. The desires for a "paperless office" are misplaced. Even if it becomes a reality, it is not fundamentally superior. This is just another deluded fantasy by people that do not understand what technology can and cannot do.
Indeed. And if you roll your own initramfs, which is not difficult with some grasp of UNIX shell-scripting, you can have exactly the failure-behavior you want. 100 lines of code is already a long one. Of course, there are now a lot of Windows refugees and they often cannot do any shell-scripting at all and are dependent on the distro-scripts being secure. But such people have no business administrating a security-critical Linux system anyways.
And fail. This is not a LUKS vulnerability. This is a vulnerability of the boot-script added by the distribution. Loop-AES will have exactly the same (mostly non-issue) with this script.
Indeed. You basically get the same as booting a rescue-system or removing the disk and accessing it directly gets you. In all, but a few very special set-ups, this means this is not actually a vulnerability or a bug that needs fixing. However, in these few very special set-ups, the standard distro-mechanisms are not enough to protect you anyways and if you rely on them, you have bigger problems than a root-shell with an unlocked encrypted root partition.
This is not worthy of a CVE. My guess is some big egos with rather small skills are at work here.
Yes, it is pretty good (for an enterprise IT). Has a reputation as an "elite team" here ;-)
Indeed. Some laptops have these switches, but you are never sure whether it is something controlled in firmware or actually "hard wired", i.e. sabotage is not possible by way of software. I think I will start to physically disconnect these microphones in the future.
Cameras are easy: A bit of quality black electrical tape, easily removed later, and they are blind. Microphones are far more difficult. You basically have to blind them with excessive noise or disconnect them. Since the internal microphones of laptops are never very good, I will start doing that for mine, no loss. And the microphone on my main computer is only plugged in when I use it.
Smartphones, on the other hand, are a problem here. I still have one with a removable battery (only way to be really sure it is off), and I will keep it that way as long as possible.
Nothing is simple when you have an "Enterprise" IT. (This means it takes as long to get anything changed as it would take you to manually shift the starship Enterprise by pushing with your hands.)
All these are not standard Ethernet. You fail to understand what this question is about.
Indeed. Ethernet is the general-purpose, cheap and reliable solution. Do not add features to it to make it a specialized network technology. That is just plain dumb.
Not necessarily. A printer can be an ATM variant with different software and no money loaded. Or it can use the same front as an ATM. It depends.
Indeed. Thieves after money have zero motivation to harm anybody with these explosives. In fact, a run-of-the mill car is probably equally dangerous and we do not break out in mindless panic if somebody is using one of those.
Not everybody is a fearful, panicky American. The comment by the police here is right on the mark for sane people. They actually understand the situation and are not spooked by mere keywords. And yes, this is funny.
Ethernet works well if you have over-provisioning. It is simple, almost zero-configuration, robust and reliable. This really bad idea would destroy all these characteristics. Why some (really bad) engineers cannot stay the hell away from things that work well is beyond me.