You do not measure solar cell efficiency in "watt per gram", you measure them in percent of the light-energy converted to current. But I guess with conventional cells now up to 20% or so, they could not have claimed a completely inane "400x improvement".
And then you make it a bit larger, and include indecent speech. And then having an unpopular political opinion. And so on. There is a reason these public registries are an exceptionally bad idea. And, incidentally, these things being public record protects exactly nobody. It makes the problem worse, because those affected cannot re-integrate into society and hence will have a lot less to lose. The mere stupidity of the whole idea is staggering.
That is the idea of the law, if sanely implemented. It also includes that it is only punishment if you can walk away from it. Life without parole and death are not sentences, they are revenge. And revenge has no place in a sane legal system.
And actually, if you are a threat to society, you should be in a closed psychiatric facility and get treatment. Jail is completely unsuitable for such people.
Incidentally, these are fundamental principles, i.e. the nature of the crime has no impact on them.
What is going on is what Orwell predicted a long time ago. And, of course, Orwell describes the end-state, not the way there. But the surveillance camera in every living room, for example, sounds eerily accurate as do the "hate" sessions and the continuing economic degradation. Sure, there is the legend that 1984 is really about the Soviet Union, but I do not buy that (even if he said it himself and even if some things are clearly copied from there). I think he knew the mind-set of a particular faction of his fellow citizens very well and 1984 is a long-term prediction for the UK.
You forget that there is a wrongdoing on the side of Volkswagen. Rather obviously so. They are asked/compelled to fix that. That is completely different.
No. This court order would compel people to write a novel, make up a story, etc. That cannot be compelled. You can only compel them to share the truth as they know it, not to make up things.
No, you CANNOT be forced to testify against somebody else. You can only be forced to describe the truth as it is known to you. If that happens to be bad for somebody else, that is an effect of the situation.
You cannot be forced to make thinks up when testifying. You cannot be forced to give expert-witness testimony that requires analysis work and conclusions. You can only be forced to describe the truth as it is known to you.
Microsoft has monkeys that can code? Not consistent with the observable lack of code-quality on their part. More likely, they use rabbits or some other species that is so stupid they can only survive by reproducing like crazy.
Impressively clueless! "Giving information" and "force to say something specific" are two entirely different things. And of course "apology letters" only apply in the presence to wrongdoing on the part that has to write the letters, so they are completely irrelevant here.
Indeed. Another excellent argument. If this really was about making users more secure, then there would be a _lot_ of places where that time and effort would have done a lot more good. Hence this clearly is not about making the user more secure. And then we can pretty directly conclude that it is some weak form of DRM, intended to give them more control over the platform.
Nice emotional manipulation approach. Of course entirely invalid and unsophisticated in addition. And, quite frankly, if my expert opinion looks bad to you, then
1) that says certain pretty bad things about you and 2) I do not care. At all. I do _not_ want to be part of your club-of-morons.
There are enough morons out there with no clue about security that are also Dunning-Kruger sufferers, i.e. they have no clue how clueless they are.
1. Manufacturers and models are critical to repeatability and verifiability. As it is, they could have pulled those numbers from their backsides and nobody could tell. 2. There are quite a few SSDs out there that have problems in the relevant time-of-purchase time-span. For example, OCZ had much higher failure rates in a number of models. Without knowing whether any of those (and how many) were in the sample, you do not get a realistic picture, as you are comparing devices on different maturity levels. 3. It depends very much what additional measures to deal with the shortcomings of SLC and MLS, respectively, are implemented. Without make and model and firmware revision, that is impossible to say. They may have well measured the effects of certain firmware artifacts, not of SLC vs. MLC at all. In fact, their numbers suggest such an error. 4. It is also important to know what type of memory and controller was in there. Some may cause systematic errors independent of SLC or MLC usage. Again, their numbers suggest such errors.
There are quite a few more methodical shortcomings.
This is not science. This is statistics done without understanding and with any repeatability and verifiability removed. Work on low amateur-level that should have been rejected by any competent reviewer.
Just as worthless as their last "study" on storage reliability, as they do not name manufacturers and models. Research published by Google sucks badly.
Indeed. and the reason for that is that it is actually not an attempt to make users and systems more secure. It is an attempt to eventually make anything except Windows problematic or impossible to install. User benefits are somewhere between zero and negative.
Secure boot is actually a worth a lot less than most people think. In most cases it will cause more hassle than security increase. It is basically an attempt to lock PCs to Windows (eventually), not an attempt to make users more secure. The idea is that when Joe Ordinary tries to install Linux, additional problems surface and he will give up.
You obviously have absolutely no experience how this works in the real world. You would, of course, have to write a specific justification. That is already enough to keep th exceptions low.
Are you functionally illiterate or just plain stupid? Why do you think I said "For an individual contract, that version needs to be specified, of course."?
And in addition, the enemy will really love this, as instead of buying their own weapons they can just hack and re-purpose those of the enemy. Ideal terrorist weapon too. Anybody that thinks the government can secure these systems is off their rocker.
Slashdot Mirror
You do not measure solar cell efficiency in "watt per gram", you measure them in percent of the light-energy converted to current. But I guess with conventional cells now up to 20% or so, they could not have claimed a completely inane "400x improvement".
And then you make it a bit larger, and include indecent speech. And then having an unpopular political opinion. And so on. There is a reason these public registries are an exceptionally bad idea. And, incidentally, these things being public record protects exactly nobody. It makes the problem worse, because those affected cannot re-integrate into society and hence will have a lot less to lose. The mere stupidity of the whole idea is staggering.
The victim has no right to execute punishment. That is a state-monopoly. And also a rather well-known and fundamental principle.
That is the idea of the law, if sanely implemented. It also includes that it is only punishment if you can walk away from it. Life without parole and death are not sentences, they are revenge. And revenge has no place in a sane legal system.
And actually, if you are a threat to society, you should be in a closed psychiatric facility and get treatment. Jail is completely unsuitable for such people.
Incidentally, these are fundamental principles, i.e. the nature of the crime has no impact on them.
What is going on is what Orwell predicted a long time ago. And, of course, Orwell describes the end-state, not the way there. But the surveillance camera in every living room, for example, sounds eerily accurate as do the "hate" sessions and the continuing economic degradation. Sure, there is the legend that 1984 is really about the Soviet Union, but I do not buy that (even if he said it himself and even if some things are clearly copied from there). I think he knew the mind-set of a particular faction of his fellow citizens very well and 1984 is a long-term prediction for the UK.
Indeed. Well, maybe the UK votes to leave the EU soon and the subsequent inevitable implosion of their economy will make this pretty irrelevant.
Come to think of it, maybe these are _preparation_ for a collapse of the UK?
It cannot compel people to make stuff up, like a fairy-tale, a poem or a novel. And that is the aspect of speech we are talking about here.
You forget that there is a wrongdoing on the side of Volkswagen. Rather obviously so. They are asked/compelled to fix that. That is completely different.
No. This court order would compel people to write a novel, make up a story, etc. That cannot be compelled. You can only compel them to share the truth as they know it, not to make up things.
No, you CANNOT be forced to testify against somebody else. You can only be forced to describe the truth as it is known to you. If that happens to be bad for somebody else, that is an effect of the situation.
You cannot be forced to make thinks up when testifying. You cannot be forced to give expert-witness testimony that requires analysis work and conclusions. You can only be forced to describe the truth as it is known to you.
Microsoft has monkeys that can code? Not consistent with the observable lack of code-quality on their part. More likely, they use rabbits or some other species that is so stupid they can only survive by reproducing like crazy.
Impressively clueless! "Giving information" and "force to say something specific" are two entirely different things. And of course "apology letters" only apply in the presence to wrongdoing on the part that has to write the letters, so they are completely irrelevant here.
Indeed. Another excellent argument. If this really was about making users more secure, then there would be a _lot_ of places where that time and effort would have done a lot more good. Hence this clearly is not about making the user more secure. And then we can pretty directly conclude that it is some weak form of DRM, intended to give them more control over the platform.
Nice emotional manipulation approach. Of course entirely invalid and unsophisticated in addition. And, quite frankly, if my expert opinion looks bad to you, then
1) that says certain pretty bad things about you and
2) I do not care. At all. I do _not_ want to be part of your club-of-morons.
There are enough morons out there with no clue about security that are also Dunning-Kruger sufferers, i.e. they have no clue how clueless they are.
Several points:
1. Manufacturers and models are critical to repeatability and verifiability. As it is, they could have pulled those numbers from their backsides and nobody could tell.
2. There are quite a few SSDs out there that have problems in the relevant time-of-purchase time-span. For example, OCZ had much higher failure rates in a number of models. Without knowing whether any of those (and how many) were in the sample, you do not get a realistic picture, as you are comparing devices on different maturity levels.
3. It depends very much what additional measures to deal with the shortcomings of SLC and MLS, respectively, are implemented. Without make and model and firmware revision, that is impossible to say. They may have well measured the effects of certain firmware artifacts, not of SLC vs. MLC at all. In fact, their numbers suggest such an error.
4. It is also important to know what type of memory and controller was in there. Some may cause systematic errors independent of SLC or MLC usage. Again, their numbers suggest such errors.
There are quite a few more methodical shortcomings.
This is not science. This is statistics done without understanding and with any repeatability and verifiability removed. Work on low amateur-level that should have been rejected by any competent reviewer.
Just as worthless as their last "study" on storage reliability, as they do not name manufacturers and models. Research published by Google sucks badly.
Of course, a smart opponent will only hijack the weapons shortly before use. That way the US will do all the maintenance!
Excellent example. And by the time they were called to task in court, DR-DOS was dead, despite being a vastly superior product.
Indeed. and the reason for that is that it is actually not an attempt to make users and systems more secure. It is an attempt to eventually make anything except Windows problematic or impossible to install. User benefits are somewhere between zero and negative.
Secure boot is actually a worth a lot less than most people think. In most cases it will cause more hassle than security increase. It is basically an attempt to lock PCs to Windows (eventually), not an attempt to make users more secure. The idea is that when Joe Ordinary tries to install Linux, additional problems surface and he will give up.
You obviously have absolutely no experience how this works in the real world. You would, of course, have to write a specific justification. That is already enough to keep th exceptions low.
Then I hope very much you do not get any offers.
Are you functionally illiterate or just plain stupid? Why do you think I said "For an individual contract, that version needs to be specified, of course."?
And in addition, the enemy will really love this, as instead of buying their own weapons they can just hack and re-purpose those of the enemy. Ideal terrorist weapon too. Anybody that thinks the government can secure these systems is off their rocker.