Urgh. Can we at least have these glass cube in a specific location so we do not have to look at them? I meet enough fools as it is, seeing them naked in addition is just too much!
Unfortunately, you are quite correct. That is where free society comes in. In free society, the second factor is not a factor anymore and that is one of the most important reasons to fight for free society: The freedom to ignore others that believe they are entitled to dictate what you think and how you have to live.
In the real world, it often comes down to a trade-off between what you lose if you resist religion and what you are actually willing to give up and this can be extreme. For example in some Theocracies, you are free to renounce the state-religion, but that carries a death-penalty. (Most religions had instances of that at some time in history, so no religion is really any better here...) Still, some people chose to not give religion power over their minds even under these extreme circumstances. It is a harsh choice, but it is a choice.
Fortunately, a Theocracy is ultimately doomed to fail, just as any other form of Totalitarianism. It kills innovation, flexibility, economic resilience and sooner or later runs into changed conditions it cannot handle. That alone would already be a good idea to not have one, it is just not a viable model for a long-term prosperous (or surviving) society. Unfortunately, it can take a long time to reach the point of failure.
Your level of not-understanding is fascinating. Of course, a properly firewalled IP is not public anymore. Or are you maybe confusing "public IP" and "non-private IP"? The former is Internet-reachable, the latter gets routed in the Internet when packets are sent to it, but it may well be not public because there is a firewall in-between that filters it. That would mean you have trouble distinguishing between what range an IP is from and whether the Internet transports packets to a specific IP address up to the border of some access network. Is that it?
Or maybe you are unfamiliar with the concepts of "default-open" and "default-closed"? A public IP is a default-open approach and needs to be explicitly isolated from the Internet by additional measures to make it non-reachable. A private IP address is default-closed because it only becomes Internet-reachable with additional measures (e.g. static NAT).
Seriously, if you are confused about these ideas, you have no business being in this discussion. But I suspect you are just intentionally trolling.
A (very apologetic) Jew once explained to me that because they believe they are the "chosen race", they do not try to convert others. Apparently it is possible to become a Jew if you want to, but it is exceptionally difficult. While most religions go for the "assimilate" approach (think "The Borg"), Judaism goes for out-breeding the competition. Mistaking them for a "race" likely comes from that approach as they mingle far slower and some subgroups may appear to be racially homogeneous.
As they are still around in numbers after a long, long time, that approach seems to be working at least to some degree. They also seem to have managed to absorb enough outsiders to not suffer significant genetic degeneration, unlike some other (smaller) religions that use a similar approach.
Funny. If you do not filter it in a firewall, the problem _is_ the public IP. The firewall is a follow-up measure you use to make it secure again and the sysadmins in question quite obviously failed to do so. Stop defending them, they messed up.
Not really, you forget that little aspect of the economic advantage of the attacker: They always will go the easiest route because there is no money in making things harder for yourself. Sure, there is some fuzziness in that, but not a lot. While Apple may not know the exact route the attackers took, they will know a relatively small set of viable, cheap attacks and the attackers will have used one of those.
ACs will be typically classified as trolls with some personality disorder, and certainly as cowards, but not as a threat. So they should be pretty safe.
Rather obviously, surveillance by the NSA, GCHQ and others does not serve to make anybody more secure, as it is now exceptionally obvious it does not help against terrorism or the other "Horsemen of the Infocalypse" at all. So why do it? Sure, one aspect will be the fundamental desire of any bureaucracy to increase its size and to absorb (i.e. waste) as many resources as possible. Look at the TSA for a text-book example of that happening. But that is not enough to explain what is going on.
I have by now come to the conclusion that these people have either completely lost their minds (unlikely) or that they know exactly what they want (likely) and that is the chilling effects that general surveillance causes: They want "troublemakers" to keep silent and self-censor and to not rock the boat. They want to be sure they have some dirt on anybody that may ever come into political power so they can prevent that if they do not like the ideas of that person. Unlike the publicly stated motivations for universal surveillance, _these_ goals are rational (if utterly despicable and evil) and achievable.
It used to be an all-seeing all knowing-god that served this function. People would "confess their sins" (i.e. do self-surveillance and report to their case-officer on themselves) and would be told what was acceptable to think and what was not. Now, even most religious people do not fall for that anymore and so a cabal of power-mongers has decided to implement a technical solution that replaces said god with technology. The mechanisms are a bit different, people now pay for being being spied and provide the hardware (e.g. cellphones) instead of doing it themselves manually. The direct feedback from the confessor has been replaced by general guidelines. The news are showing "bad people" being sent to prison and hint they are being tortured there, not so different from what the inquisition did, just adjusted to the information-age. And so on.
Universal surveillance is a direct, targeted and determined attack on free society. There really is no different purpose it could serve. Sure, it is carried out and furthered by a lot of "useful idiots" that do not understand what the actual goals are and why it is being done (and I expect quite a few of those would still go along if they knew), but those in control will know. It will be how we, as a still mostly free society, deal with this challenge that will determine how history remembers us.
You seem to have a peculiar definition of "morals". I should point out that when I did run into the putty-problem, I had a contractually assured permission to do what I did. Now, I _could_ have gone into an exception process and waited a few weeks (wasting expensive time, jeopardizing a deadline and all with uncertain outcome), but that seemed to me to be highly unethical.
And miss the fun of mocking all the morons that fall for the con? No way!
Incidentally, I do not dislike VR. I would love to have well-working VR. I do think that at this time it is not ready. There is a bit of a difference. If you try _really_ hard, you may be able to spot it.
I don't think so. Look at my/. ID and then take this: The only time I have ever been below "excellent" karma (not for long) was when I clashed with some religious fuckups. I believe that you should at least attach your pseudonym or shut up. Sniping from the shadows is for cowards and trolls.
Incidentally: Read my sig. That makes my stance pretty clear, I would think.
You mean those that prevent you from downloading, e.g. Putty from its original source, but allow you to download arbitrary stuff from your own web-server? These are so pathetic, it would be funny if they were not protecting real assets.
It is pretty clear that the knew the security trade-offs they were making in that device. When you have the full design docs and the rationale behind them, it is not hard to figure out what attack vectors are there and how difficult they are to exploit. Sure, if the mystical "outside agency" had taken a few months to unlock the phone, then an unknown vulnerability (to Apple) would have been a real possibility, but this way it is almost certainly a simple attack against the hardware or a known vulnerability in the software and unless the phone designers at Apple are terminally incompetent, they know all of those. It _really_ is not rocket science, even if the FBI tried to make it look like it.
Because people are stupid. And I do not mean users, I mean the sysadmin that configured the printer with a public IP or allowed it to get one from the DHCP server. An ordinary user would at least have some level of valid excuse...
Actually, it is quite possible. You just renounce the stupid belief that you cannot renounce being a Jew as well. Religion only has power over you if you let it.
No, he is not. His former religion may claim that he is, but in actual fact he is a former Jew. Being a Jew is not something genetic. It takes two brain cells to rub together to see that however, which you obviously lack.
Without secure enclave, the phone is basically wide open for pretty simple attacks on the hardware. With secure enclave, things may be a lot different.
It cannot have been very difficult, it was far too fast for that. My guess was FLASH removal, replacement with emulator, and then try 10x, shut down phone, reset emulator, boot, try 10x,.... If I am right, this is something I and many others could do in our home-labs. It would also mean that the FBI directly lied when claiming to need Apple's help.
I would say "reading comprehension", but your issue seems more to be "non-working ratio". Hint: "anecdotal evidence" is not "evidence" at all and often is just a result of effective marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
Urgh. Can we at least have these glass cube in a specific location so we do not have to look at them? I meet enough fools as it is, seeing them naked in addition is just too much!
Unfortunately, you are quite correct. That is where free society comes in. In free society, the second factor is not a factor anymore and that is one of the most important reasons to fight for free society: The freedom to ignore others that believe they are entitled to dictate what you think and how you have to live.
In the real world, it often comes down to a trade-off between what you lose if you resist religion and what you are actually willing to give up and this can be extreme. For example in some Theocracies, you are free to renounce the state-religion, but that carries a death-penalty. (Most religions had instances of that at some time in history, so no religion is really any better here...) Still, some people chose to not give religion power over their minds even under these extreme circumstances. It is a harsh choice, but it is a choice.
Fortunately, a Theocracy is ultimately doomed to fail, just as any other form of Totalitarianism. It kills innovation, flexibility, economic resilience and sooner or later runs into changed conditions it cannot handle. That alone would already be a good idea to not have one, it is just not a viable model for a long-term prosperous (or surviving) society. Unfortunately, it can take a long time to reach the point of failure.
Your level of not-understanding is fascinating. Of course, a properly firewalled IP is not public anymore. Or are you maybe confusing "public IP" and "non-private IP"? The former is Internet-reachable, the latter gets routed in the Internet when packets are sent to it, but it may well be not public because there is a firewall in-between that filters it. That would mean you have trouble distinguishing between what range an IP is from and whether the Internet transports packets to a specific IP address up to the border of some access network. Is that it?
Or maybe you are unfamiliar with the concepts of "default-open" and "default-closed"? A public IP is a default-open approach and needs to be explicitly isolated from the Internet by additional measures to make it non-reachable. A private IP address is default-closed because it only becomes Internet-reachable with additional measures (e.g. static NAT).
Seriously, if you are confused about these ideas, you have no business being in this discussion. But I suspect you are just intentionally trolling.
A (very apologetic) Jew once explained to me that because they believe they are the "chosen race", they do not try to convert others. Apparently it is possible to become a Jew if you want to, but it is exceptionally difficult. While most religions go for the "assimilate" approach (think "The Borg"), Judaism goes for out-breeding the competition. Mistaking them for a "race" likely comes from that approach as they mingle far slower and some subgroups may appear to be racially homogeneous.
As they are still around in numbers after a long, long time, that approach seems to be working at least to some degree. They also seem to have managed to absorb enough outsiders to not suffer significant genetic degeneration, unlike some other (smaller) religions that use a similar approach.
Funny. If you do not filter it in a firewall, the problem _is_ the public IP. The firewall is a follow-up measure you use to make it secure again and the sysadmins in question quite obviously failed to do so. Stop defending them, they messed up.
the possible angles for attack are huge,
Not really, you forget that little aspect of the economic advantage of the attacker: They always will go the easiest route because there is no money in making things harder for yourself. Sure, there is some fuzziness in that, but not a lot. While Apple may not know the exact route the attackers took, they will know a relatively small set of viable, cheap attacks and the attackers will have used one of those.
And in how far is accessing a tool that I need to do my work "slacking off"?
ACs will be typically classified as trolls with some personality disorder, and certainly as cowards, but not as a threat. So they should be pretty safe.
Rather obviously, surveillance by the NSA, GCHQ and others does not serve to make anybody more secure, as it is now exceptionally obvious it does not help against terrorism or the other "Horsemen of the Infocalypse" at all. So why do it? Sure, one aspect will be the fundamental desire of any bureaucracy to increase its size and to absorb (i.e. waste) as many resources as possible. Look at the TSA for a text-book example of that happening. But that is not enough to explain what is going on.
I have by now come to the conclusion that these people have either completely lost their minds (unlikely) or that they know exactly what they want (likely) and that is the chilling effects that general surveillance causes: They want "troublemakers" to keep silent and self-censor and to not rock the boat. They want to be sure they have some dirt on anybody that may ever come into political power so they can prevent that if they do not like the ideas of that person. Unlike the publicly stated motivations for universal surveillance, _these_ goals are rational (if utterly despicable and evil) and achievable.
It used to be an all-seeing all knowing-god that served this function. People would "confess their sins" (i.e. do self-surveillance and report to their case-officer on themselves) and would be told what was acceptable to think and what was not. Now, even most religious people do not fall for that anymore and so a cabal of power-mongers has decided to implement a technical solution that replaces said god with technology. The mechanisms are a bit different, people now pay for being being spied and provide the hardware (e.g. cellphones) instead of doing it themselves manually. The direct feedback from the confessor has been replaced by general guidelines. The news are showing "bad people" being sent to prison and hint they are being tortured there, not so different from what the inquisition did, just adjusted to the information-age. And so on.
Universal surveillance is a direct, targeted and determined attack on free society. There really is no different purpose it could serve. Sure, it is carried out and furthered by a lot of "useful idiots" that do not understand what the actual goals are and why it is being done (and I expect quite a few of those would still go along if they knew), but those in control will know. It will be how we, as a still mostly free society, deal with this challenge that will determine how history remembers us.
You seem to have a peculiar definition of "morals". I should point out that when I did run into the putty-problem, I had a contractually assured permission to do what I did. Now, I _could_ have gone into an exception process and waited a few weeks (wasting expensive time, jeopardizing a deadline and all with uncertain outcome), but that seemed to me to be highly unethical.
The software better kick some royal ass ...
You do not sound like you have any experience with current MS software.
And miss the fun of mocking all the morons that fall for the con? No way!
Incidentally, I do not dislike VR. I would love to have well-working VR. I do think that at this time it is not ready. There is a bit of a difference. If you try _really_ hard, you may be able to spot it.
I don't think so. Look at my /. ID and then take this: The only time I have ever been below "excellent" karma (not for long) was when I clashed with some religious fuckups. I believe that you should at least attach your pseudonym or shut up. Sniping from the shadows is for cowards and trolls.
Incidentally: Read my sig. That makes my stance pretty clear, I would think.
You mean those that prevent you from downloading, e.g. Putty from its original source, but allow you to download arbitrary stuff from your own web-server? These are so pathetic, it would be funny if they were not protecting real assets.
I very much doubt that was necessary.
It is pretty clear that the knew the security trade-offs they were making in that device. When you have the full design docs and the rationale behind them, it is not hard to figure out what attack vectors are there and how difficult they are to exploit. Sure, if the mystical "outside agency" had taken a few months to unlock the phone, then an unknown vulnerability (to Apple) would have been a real possibility, but this way it is almost certainly a simple attack against the hardware or a known vulnerability in the software and unless the phone designers at Apple are terminally incompetent, they know all of those. It _really_ is not rocket science, even if the FBI tried to make it look like it.
Because people are stupid. And I do not mean users, I mean the sysadmin that configured the printer with a public IP or allowed it to get one from the DHCP server. An ordinary user would at least have some level of valid excuse...
And it's impossible to renounce your Jewishness.
Actually, it is quite possible. You just renounce the stupid belief that you cannot renounce being a Jew as well. Religion only has power over you if you let it.
No, he is not. His former religion may claim that he is, but in actual fact he is a former Jew. Being a Jew is not something genetic. It takes two brain cells to rub together to see that however, which you obviously lack.
Bullshit. Apple will have an excellent idea of what they did.
Without secure enclave, the phone is basically wide open for pretty simple attacks on the hardware. With secure enclave, things may be a lot different.
It cannot have been very difficult, it was far too fast for that. My guess was FLASH removal, replacement with emulator, and then try 10x, shut down phone, reset emulator, boot, try 10x,.... If I am right, this is something I and many others could do in our home-labs. It would also mean that the FBI directly lied when claiming to need Apple's help.
Otherwise they would, you know, maybe try to make sure what they have is well spent...
Hehehehehehehehe......
I would say "reading comprehension", but your issue seems more to be "non-working ratio". Hint: "anecdotal evidence" is not "evidence" at all and often is just a result of effective marketing.