So if you can find an modern Intel PC with a single ethernet port. It's got it.
where you can't disable it in the BIOS
Disabling AMT in bios, may not actually disable it, it may just disable exposing it as a device to the host operating system. There are *plenty* of posts from people who disabled AMT only to find it was still running, still picking up an address via DHCP, and still manageable via AMT management tools, even while the PC was "off".
In general there generally are ways to disable it; I can't find a cite for a system where it literally couldn't be turned off.
But.. even turning it off isn't reliable.
"A Ring -3 rootkit was demonstrated by Invisible Things Lab for the Q35 chipset. [...] The ME rootkit could be installed regardless of whether the AMT is present or enabled on the system, as the chipset always contains the ARC ME coprocessor. "
So even where AMT was disabled, the co-processor is still physically there and may be reachable/exploitable.
Oh, and i forgot to mention, it works with laptops on wifi too.
"Intel AMT supports wired and wireless networks. For wireless notebooks on battery power, OOB communication is available when the system is awake and connected to the corporate network, even if the OS is down."
I certainly don't think this article does any justice to the situation. But at the same time, the management engine stuff is a giant gaping security hole that does present serious and non-trivial to mitigate risks when exploits are found.
I'm not a usability expert by any means, so can anyone tell me why only four identities? That seems pretty limiting to me, it should be the end user's choice how many identities to use.
The fact that it comes with four doesn't automatically imply that advanced users can't define additional ones, or customize the list.
Even if it is limited to four, the fact that an experimental feature in nightly lacks that configurability doesn't imply that if it makes it to release it would still hard limited to four.
In other words, its good feedback, but its a bit early to "fail" the feature over it.
PS it sounds like its actually currently 5, the four named containers plus the 'default' container.
Why not something simple like each *window* have separate data that's shared between tabs? Then you don't have any UI changes or usability problems.
Some websites including banks, financial trading platforms, government tax authorities, insurance sites, business CRM/CMS sites... SalesForce and SAP and other line of business web apps come to mind. That would break all of them them.
Or is "it just works" an Apple patent or something?
No, but a prerequisite for 'it just works' is that it has to actually works.
Skype has had all of these features and more forever, oh and it handles video.
Yeah and it has ads. And I don't want video.
which by the way, since Telegram got my number, my incoming unwanted marketing calls have jumped from zero to incessant. Thankfully, it's a low-cost smartphone I got exclusively for testing Telegram, so I know it's them that fucking sold my information out 100%
So presumably all these marketing calls are on the number dedicated to your low cost smartphone that you got exclusively for testing telegram?? I mean... that's the only number Telegram has.
Or maybe the provider of your low cost smartphone sold you out? Because that would never happen.
Right as soon as I saw that, I dropped that bullshit and wiped it from phone and computer.
And I give 2 shits what you use because?
You people jumping ship to new services over established and age-hardened services make me laugh.
I'm sorry, what secure age-hardened app are you using again? Because you can't possibly still be talking about skype?!
For what it's worth, I agree telegram has its share of issues. But it does the things i want, without the things i don't want (eg... advertising, being owned by facebook, etc...)
If Telegram is selling phone numbers to marketing... I'd like to know more about that.
Maybe some are. If the average trained amateur can shoot 100 people within a few minutes span with a vanilla revolver, then yes, why wouldn't it be considered an assault weapon?
At what rate do you cross that threshold
I left it open ended. How big of a massacre will you tolerate?
For instance, oswald let off 3 aimed shots in under 8 seconds with a bolt action rifle.
Could he have have sustained that rate for 150-200 rounds though? And killed 50 people in a span of minutes? While moving around a crowded nightclub?
And while not ideal, any weapon capable of killing at long range will be capable at short range.
I stipulated it should be "suitable" not merely "capable". Long barrel high caliber with substantial recoil -- sure its absolutely capable of killing people at close range or 2 miles away, but its not terribly suitable for rushing a crowded building and killing people indiscriminately -- you won't be able to sustain the rate of fire; move while firing; nor effectively enter rooms or turn corners...etc. Its big and bulky and good luck firing two rounds in the same direction while moving... there's a reason the army doesn't use big rifles while moving through buildings...because they are entirely unsuitable for the job.
You are describing about any gun other than muzzle loaders
Not really.
But you are still proving my point about why it was pointless to try and define assault weapons in the first place.
Some dumb ass will start listing corner cases and citing what exhibition shooters are capable of. Because if a world renowned exhibition shooter acheives a rate of fire with a revolver comparable to an amateur with a semi-automatic rifle... well then I guess they are exactly the same thing. Right?
Pointless.
Obviously those assault weapons exist so what is to stop them from being accessed and used.
31% of the worlds mass shootings are in the US, 5% of the people are. Don't assault weapons exist in the rest of the world too? What stops them from being accessed and used with such frequency everywhere else?
Their strange encryption implementation has been criticized for quite a while now and there is still no ubiquitous end-to-end encryption.
The main feature of Telegram that I like is that my phone, desktop, and laptop client are always in sync. Even if some devices are asleep off.
How does one do that with end-to-end encryption? Given that I have several "ends" that I want kept in sync; so that i can pick up conversations where i left off (and review past messages) from any device? For me, that's on of the key features.
Telegram also has the 'secret chat' feature which creates an end-to-end encrypted conversation; and one feature/limitation of that is that it then only goes between the 2 devices -- what with it being "end-to-end encrypted" not having it delivered to additional 'ends' seems implied.
So I can have either. I'm not sure why that's called "strange"?
Maybe I've missed something though that you are critical of?
And who is unfortunate enough to be on a "receiver pays" mobile network?
Um... its the same as email. If you download all your email and attachments via mobile data... then you pay for that. That's not some sort of weird backwards receiver pays network, that's how all data plans work everywhere.
You cannot define assault weapon without falling into the exact same problem of it only describing how scary the weapon looks.
Not at all. I'd define it based on sustained rate-of-fire including reload, and general suitability for engaging/killing unarmored human targets at short range.
But what would that actually accomplish? A ban on firearms within those constraints would never pass. (And honestly, it shouldn't pass. At some point the guns themselves aren't the problem.)
Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it was right or should be repeated.
Obviously. Nobody disputes that. Sometimes the past got it right.
So merely pointing out that sometimes the past got it wrong doesn't make any particular argument about gun rights. And tangents about beating people or dunking people are just irrelevant; in support of a claim nobody is disputing.
The solution to american gun violence isn't going to come from a ban on X, for some definition of X.
As for towns in territories, it used to be constitutional and legal to literally own and whip/beat another human being. Not all laws are just. Not all laws are constitutional.
I really don't care for Siri, nor the fact that the computer will have to actively listen in 24/7 to support that.
Quick, someone read the new OSX EULA... and see all the fun stuff in there to allow Siri to work in OSX. Will it by default want to upload all your contacts and browsing search terms and the apps you use, and your calendar events, and your current location, etc to apple? I can't imagine it won't want to do that.
A lot of the crap in the Windows 10 EULA was to give Cortana the data it would need to operate. I assume Apple will have to do the same for Siri now.
It's going to be interesting to see how people react. Will we have big long/. tirades from long time Mac users ditching OSX and raging about OSX spyware? I doubt it. Instead we'll get gushing reviews about how they asked Siri on their laptop to find something, and then 2 days later when they tried to find that same something on their phone Siri "remembered" what they were looking for (on their desktop) and suggested it!
I'm not the poster you are replying to. But actually no. You are mis-reading his post.
His point was that the gun legislation that passed was only toothless and pointless because of the gun lobby.
The assault weapons ban only banned what the weapons look like and little more
Because of the gun lobby.
but all the existing high capacity mags were grandfathered in.
Because of the gun lobby.
The exact same gun claimed to be an assault weapon in this case ( AR15) could have the stock changed and flash suppressor removed and not be considered an assault weapon even though the functioning mechanics would be identical.
Because of the gun lobby.
Bottom line, the gun lobby is MORE responsible for that piece of shit legislation than the anti-gun lobby. They lobbied until it was pointless, and then laughed all the way home when it passed.
As for places with no guns, your own home as long as all legal residents agree
Back in the 1880s entire towns were gun free zones.
"You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," -- regarding Tombstone, AZ
And drinking establishments have traditionally had rules about turning in your weapons also going back to the "wild west".
Its not impossible we would leave a trace - just exceedingly unlikely and that likelihood skyrocketed in the last century
I'm going to disagree on the "exceedingly" part of the exceedingly unlikely, but overall I think we agree. Every other species has literally had to die 'just-so' with its eminently bio-degradable body in just the right circumstances to leave a trace. Primitive humans are so much easier to to spot because even without bodies they moved the earth around, and left artifacts of pottery and metal, and shaped stone arrowheads, etc.
Modern humanity... is going to leave a lot more behind, and jumbled together in ways that nothing else ever has. A freight train parked in a tunnel, collapses over time... and its hard to imagine what that's going to leave behind. Mere thousands years it might easily still be recognizeable as a train, and even some of its cargo recoverable. Millions of years out... if water isn't running through it, if air isn't running through it... if it just gets slowly crushed... you are still going to have this half mile line of rust, iron, magnesium, that defies explanation. And it'll take is one plastic switch or length of wire, bit of metal -- perhaps an engine part trapped with some oil... that gets trapped "just so".
As you said, the odds we leave trace behind has skyrocketed. I think that's all i'm saying too. No gaurantee we're still discoverable 100M years out... but if i had to pick a species as having odds of leaving traces that are discovered 100M years out... i'd say humans hands down.
They might not find a human skeleton... but they're likely going to know something was here.
As I replied elsewhere in the thread... we've got 500 million old trilobite fossils, and mosquitos and lizards in amber from 100 million years ago.
All it will take to prove humans had technology 100M years from now is some piece of modern garbage -- to leave its imprint in some mud somewhere to become part of the fossil record, or get encased in amber, or get otherwise sealed away somewhere where it won't erode or corrode, somewhere dry, somewhere cold, somewhere airtight, somewhere in darkness. It will happen.
The longer the timeline, the less the odds that something recognisable is found.
A yet we have fossile records of soft creatures from half a billion years ago. I can't say we will definitely leave a trace... but you can't definitively say there won't be one either.
Hell... even just a landfill full of e-waste... even if its completely "disintegrated" and the elements compressed and formed into a layer of rock... just the presence of all those elements, metals, rare-earths all jumbled together; in higher density than surrounding areas... all localized in one spot in one layer of the geological record... with no natural explanation for how or why they got there... with odd isotope ratios that all combine to defy natural explanation. Yet 500 meters away in every direction the same layer of rock is perfectly unremarkable.
Diamonds degrade and oxidize. They can even burn, smoulder, melt, or simply lose their structure over time at human-livable pressures and temperatures.
Yes all true. While under other conditions they can last a billion years.
There is no such thing as a fire proof safe.
Your point? I'm not suggesting we actually put it in a fire. I'm suggesting it finds itself stuck in an airtight watertight space for a few 10s of millions of years. Precisely where it won't oxidize.
There are very few places 65 million years is stable enough to not crush your experiment
What experiment? I'm not trying to place something for 100M years. I'm looking instead at the odds that something of our creation will randomly find itself in one of those "very few places" and get preserved through chance rather than by design. The entire human race is the experiment.
Even if everything was in a perfectly sealed bunker on the moon it would still happen.
And yet, chance gives us perfectly preserved trilobite fossiles half a billion years old. But.. but... rocks erode... rain, water, even wind... will weather away a mountain.... yet the fossils still exist. We have lizards trapped in amber that are 100M years old.
Some of the diamonds will be crushed. others melted, others dissolved or turned to graphite... but some won't. Some will find some inert stable corner of the world away from heat and light and water and wind. And they'll just sit there.
Could I tell you where to put something so that it would reliably survive 100M years? Nope. But can you credibly tell me nothing survives that long... of course not. We have all kinds of 100M year old traces of even the most fragile biological systems that found somewhere stable enough to ride out the years so we could find them. Insects in Amber for example. You think a lego minifig wouldn't hold up in amber?
That skepticism should be applied to yourself before criticizing others.
That skepticism was about the scale of gravitational time dilation effects... what did you think it was about?
Why do you think there is going to be a bunch of volcanoes going off everywhere? Some places sure. 100 million years from now there'll be whole new mountain ranges somewhere.
Other places... not.
Several mountain ranges are upwards of a 2 and even 3 billion years old.
As much as some parts of the world will change in 100M years, other parts will be extremely stable. What do you think the Appalachian mountains looked like 100M years ago? Pretty much the same as they do now.
Something buried deep in a mine in the appalacians... isn't going to be affected much by 100M years worth of volcanoes going on somewhere else.
I gave 3 examples. But yes all 3 are less than a century old yes.
Although I'd expect platinum jewelry and cut diamonds and other stones (even without laser engraving) would survive just fine... and we've had that for a decent while now.
"Not to mention it is utterly silly to assume that another species in a different environment would have similar technologies to us"
I didn't assume that. I was merely arguing that humanity should leave ample traces that will last 100M years. I wasn't making an argument about dinosaurs.
You are underestimating just how massive an amount of deep time 65-million years was.
What would a radioactive waste storage look like in a 100M years? Ridiculously stable. Dry. Sealed from elements. Even if it literally just disintegrated in place, the odd mix and ratios of remaining isotopes at the site, surrounded by solid geologically stable rock millions of years older... would clearly suggest something unnatural.
Or perhaps a lego mini-fig -- tey'll soon outnumber humans after all. http://xkcd.com/1281/
Surely bunches of those highly stable bits of plastic will find themselves some place safe to hide... preserved in amber, or tarpits, or trapped in some glacier, at the bottom of the ocean, or in a salt mine... there are billions of them, so probably all of those things will happen.
And we have things like modern jewelry. Laser engraved diamonds, set in platinum bands. Stored inside fire proof safes... some which would end up buried in stable places... even bunkers. What's 65 million years going to do to that?
Secondly - your argument is flawed because that's not how time works, time is relative and doesn't happen at a constant rate. Planets that rotate their stars slower have physically existed longer than ones that move slower. So two planets around the same star, in different orbits, which orbit in the same timeframe, that formed together at the same time - the outer one will be significantly younger because time slows down as you speed up. It may be a matter of seconds per rotation - but there's been many billions of rotations for those to add up.
Ok... so lets put some figures into those numbers... say 11 seconds for "a matter of seconds". And how about 4.6 billion for for "many billions" as that's the age of our solar system measured from earth's perspective at least.
11 seconds x 4.6 billion rotations = 1603 years. I don't think we need to worry too much about relative ages of the planets.
This is, actually, one reason why - if there is life on Io or Europa - that life is likely to be "bacterial" rather than fishes - those moons circle a massive planet, any life there has had significantly less time to evolve than life on earth has had. No, I don't feel like doing the math to figure out how much.
You really think its going to be billions of years though? I'm pretty skeptical. Maybe you should do the math.
Is there a way to do this without storing the password itself?
The most usual password change mechanisms require you to enter the previous password to set the new one -- it would be easy to hang onto the plaintext of the old to do analysis against the proposed new password for the duration of that dialog.
This would not be a major issue with respect to hackers because they'd need your old password to get into the dialog in the first place.
And presumably you might be able to bypass this distance "feature" if you deliberately chose to use the forgot password reset feature to update your passwords; as the system wouldn't have your old password to compare with; so the system wouldn't enforce that rule in this scenario.
Is there a way to do this without storing the password itself?
Yes.
Given the new password, calculate "nearby" passwords and see if you come up with the old password hash.
E.g. if your original password is 'stupid', and you try to enter new password as 'stupid2', then you can drop the '2' and see if 'stupid' gets you the original hash; which it would.
So you could do some screening for at least trivial pw modifications without storing anything more than normal. hamming distances of one or two wouldn't take too much power to brute force.
But I expect your worst fear is right-- most systems that have this feature probably do store your password(s) somewhere to facilitate the feature. Just another reason to use a password safe with garbage passwords.
1. That would eat away at hardware cosole sales. MS won't go for that.
I *think* Microsoft consoles are sold at a loss, for the first couple years anyway and they make it back on xbox live and game sales -- they probably don't really care about lost sales of actual consoles... that's just the platform for their profit centers not an important profit center unto itself.
2. The whole point of consoles is that you can develop for a specific set of hardware
Console dev's still would do just that. This doesn't change that.
3. MS may try to block systems that aren't fast enough but some will get through.
Probably. But so what? The "default" reference platform will still be the actual physical xbox. If your PC doesn't measure up, that's on you.
many games simply were not made to handle systems that are too slow or too fast (thugh like the above, software running too fast is a problem that can be tackled).
Its been a while since this really mattered for most games. And its a challenge that other systems have tackled Wii-ware for example, did a truly brilliant job of it. The timing on some of the emulators is a bit dodgy... but playing the NES and SNES games on Wii U... i coasted through levels on pure childhood -honed muscle memory and the timing was perfect.
4. Cheating on PC games is a big problem, but because consoles are closed, it is much less of a problem there. This move would dramatically increase the instances of hacking in online Xbox One games that end up on PC.
The xbox would probably run in a sandbox... maybe a lightweight hyper-visor like separation. MS would definitely do its best to shield the xbox "machine" from the host OS. But yeah... it would probably make hacking more of a problem than it currently is. Then again.. lot of online xbox one games are already trying cross-platforminess with PC so that door is already open. And an xbox VM running the xbox title, instead of a "PC port" is probably going to be more secure.
For me, I'm not interested. I don't want an xbox live *subscription*. I don't want upcoming games that are currently being ported to PC to disappear from steam etc because they think I'll just run xbox on my PC. I won't. So I'm going to lose access to some titles.
Basically for non-xbox using pc gamers this could be a shitshow for pc gaming if manages to disrupt proper PC game development. (e.g. if enough PC gamers buy into it.)
But I can also see the appeal for xbox users -- being able to play their xbox games on their pcs and laptops; etc that will appeal to them. And it makes good sense for MS to cater to it.
A taxi company with an app is still a taxi company.
Indeed, many cab companies now have apps -- I've booked cab rides by app on 3 continents now. Same essential features as uber... book a ride online (set time, pickup / destination addresses); see confirmations, see if a cab has been dispatched to you, see where available cars are on the map... ; leave feedback on the driver...
Its all really quite funny as uber's arguments about what make it 'uniquenly not a taxi' become even more strained and ridiculous then they already were.
And the answer is yes it does matter; even if we assumed it's not reverse engineerable.
1) You WILL run into situations that require passwords that reject your formula. Your formula has a digit... they don't allow a digit. Or your forumula is too long, or too short, or needs a capital letter, or can't contain a fraction of your user name or whatever.
2) You WILL run into situations that require password rotation. And some will be smart enough to reject last months password with an incremented counter; or swapping back and forth.;) Some will even demand high "distance" from previous passwords.
3) You WILL run into sites that are breached.
4) Some of these sites will use aggressive lockouts if you guess wrong. Making trying a few variations painful.
5) Some times you will need to enter the some passwords using truly irritating input mechanisms; alternate keyboard layouts, touch screens,
6) Some passwords need to be much more secure than others. Some passwords need to be entered much more often than others.
Between these your basically fucked. If you have a sufficiently large pool of passwords to remember, eventually your formula will have so many exceptions that your having to remember them all is just as mentally taxing as remember random passwords.
Ok... site A is the formula with a 12 on the end, because it needs to be changed once a month. Next month will be 13... Site B was hacked, so I can't use the formula on that one... because that password is compromised. Site C needs to use the formula but omit all the digits and special characters... etc etc...
I have easily upwards of 200 passwords. Registrars, utilities, domains, pin numbers, service accounts, email addresses, cloud services, forums, games, etc. I still use a few mental hashes methods for some of the more common/less important that I use -- but they all go into a password manager now. Because there list of exceptions and modifications to the formula to cope with the 6 issues above combined to be nearly as overwhelming as memorizing the passwords themselves.
So I use a password manager and that works well.
These days i still have one major issue: My email address is too easy. Given its status as a password reset for other accounts it merits a strong password, that isn't easily memorized. IT has this.
But conversely, I need to check it very regularly, from my smartphone. Entering a long cumbersome passphrase into a smartphone touchscreen 100x a day is simply not viable. I don't yet have an acceptable solution to this.
So losing my smartphone is the weakspot. Its password protected and fingerprint protected. But those are both weaker than I'd like. But I simply cannot function with having to use TFA and long passphrases everytime i check my email.
Slashdot Mirror
and where it shares the same ethernet port as the main machine
Seriously? How about... practically all modern intel PCs. (very very few of which have a dedicated magement port)
"The Management Engine (ME) is an isolated and protected coprocessor, embedded as a non-optional part in all current (as of 2015) Intel chipsets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So if you can find an modern Intel PC with a single ethernet port. It's got it.
where you can't disable it in the BIOS
Disabling AMT in bios, may not actually disable it, it may just disable exposing it as a device to the host operating system. There are *plenty* of posts from people who disabled AMT only to find it was still running, still picking up an address via DHCP, and still manageable via AMT management tools, even while the PC was "off".
In general there generally are ways to disable it; I can't find a cite for a system where it literally couldn't be turned off.
But.. even turning it off isn't reliable.
"A Ring -3 rootkit was demonstrated by Invisible Things Lab for the Q35 chipset. [...] The ME rootkit could be installed regardless of whether the AMT is present or enabled on the system, as the chipset always contains the ARC ME coprocessor. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So even where AMT was disabled, the co-processor is still physically there and may be reachable/exploitable.
Oh, and i forgot to mention, it works with laptops on wifi too.
"Intel AMT supports wired and wireless networks. For wireless notebooks on battery power, OOB communication is available when the system is awake and connected to the corporate network, even if the OS is down."
I certainly don't think this article does any justice to the situation. But at the same time, the management engine stuff is a giant gaping security hole that does present serious and non-trivial to mitigate risks when exploits are found.
As best I can tell from the article they are essentially talking about the kind of stuff you can do from a DRAC/IPMI port.
And yes, don't you think a drac/ipmi functionality that had any exploitable security holes would represent a rather massive security issue?!
I know certainly do. And most PCs that aren't using these features should probably have it off by default, don't you think?
But there is no requirement that you plug in an Ethernet cable into the associated port if you don't want to.
Many boards with it only have ethernet port. Its not necessarily a physically separate port like the ones on my servers.
I'm not a usability expert by any means, so can anyone tell me why only four identities? That seems pretty limiting to me, it should be the end user's choice how many identities to use.
The fact that it comes with four doesn't automatically imply that advanced users can't define additional ones, or customize the list.
Even if it is limited to four, the fact that an experimental feature in nightly lacks that configurability doesn't imply that if it makes it to release it would still hard limited to four.
In other words, its good feedback, but its a bit early to "fail" the feature over it.
PS it sounds like its actually currently 5, the four named containers plus the 'default' container.
Why not something simple like each *window* have separate data that's shared between tabs? Then you don't have any UI changes or usability problems.
Some websites including banks, financial trading platforms, government tax authorities, insurance sites, business CRM/CMS sites... SalesForce and SAP and other line of business web apps come to mind. That would break all of them them.
Or is "it just works" an Apple patent or something?
No, but a prerequisite for 'it just works' is that it has to actually works.
Skype has had all of these features and more forever, oh and it handles video.
Yeah and it has ads. And I don't want video.
which by the way, since Telegram got my number, my incoming unwanted marketing calls have jumped from zero to incessant. Thankfully, it's a low-cost smartphone I got exclusively for testing Telegram, so I know it's them that fucking sold my information out 100%
So presumably all these marketing calls are on the number dedicated to your low cost smartphone that you got exclusively for testing telegram?? I mean... that's the only number Telegram has.
Or maybe the provider of your low cost smartphone sold you out? Because that would never happen.
Right as soon as I saw that, I dropped that bullshit and wiped it from phone and computer.
And I give 2 shits what you use because?
You people jumping ship to new services over established and age-hardened services make me laugh.
I'm sorry, what secure age-hardened app are you using again? Because you can't possibly still be talking about skype?!
For what it's worth, I agree telegram has its share of issues. But it does the things i want, without the things i don't want (eg... advertising, being owned by facebook, etc...)
If Telegram is selling phone numbers to marketing... I'd like to know more about that.
So a revolver is an assault weapon?
Maybe some are. If the average trained amateur can shoot 100 people within a few minutes span with a vanilla revolver, then yes, why wouldn't it be considered an assault weapon?
At what rate do you cross that threshold
I left it open ended. How big of a massacre will you tolerate?
For instance, oswald let off 3 aimed shots in under 8 seconds with a bolt action rifle.
Could he have have sustained that rate for 150-200 rounds though? And killed 50 people in a span of minutes? While moving around a crowded nightclub?
And while not ideal, any weapon capable of killing at long range will be capable at short range.
I stipulated it should be "suitable" not merely "capable". Long barrel high caliber with substantial recoil -- sure its absolutely capable of killing people at close range or 2 miles away, but its not terribly suitable for rushing a crowded building and killing people indiscriminately -- you won't be able to sustain the rate of fire; move while firing; nor effectively enter rooms or turn corners...etc. Its big and bulky and good luck firing two rounds in the same direction while moving... there's a reason the army doesn't use big rifles while moving through buildings...because they are entirely unsuitable for the job.
You are describing about any gun other than muzzle loaders
Not really.
But you are still proving my point about why it was pointless to try and define assault weapons in the first place.
Some dumb ass will start listing corner cases and citing what exhibition shooters are capable of. Because if a world renowned exhibition shooter acheives a rate of fire with a revolver comparable to an amateur with a semi-automatic rifle... well then I guess they are exactly the same thing. Right?
Pointless.
Obviously those assault weapons exist so what is to stop them from being accessed and used.
31% of the worlds mass shootings are in the US, 5% of the people are. Don't assault weapons exist in the rest of the world too? What stops them from being accessed and used with such frequency everywhere else?
Their strange encryption implementation has been criticized for quite a while now and there is still no ubiquitous end-to-end encryption.
The main feature of Telegram that I like is that my phone, desktop, and laptop client are always in sync. Even if some devices are asleep off.
How does one do that with end-to-end encryption? Given that I have several "ends" that I want kept in sync; so that i can pick up conversations where i left off (and review past messages) from any device? For me, that's on of the key features.
Telegram also has the 'secret chat' feature which creates an end-to-end encrypted conversation; and one feature/limitation of that is that it then only goes between the 2 devices -- what with it being "end-to-end encrypted" not having it delivered to additional 'ends' seems implied.
So I can have either. I'm not sure why that's called "strange"?
Maybe I've missed something though that you are critical of?
And who is unfortunate enough to be on a "receiver pays" mobile network?
Um... its the same as email. If you download all your email and attachments via mobile data... then you pay for that. That's not some sort of weird backwards receiver pays network, that's how all data plans work everywhere.
Telegram also lets you send pictures.
So... if you want to eat mobile data....
A crash bug/legnth check issue sure... that's a defect that needs to be fixed. But we don't need to imagine new issues too.
You cannot define assault weapon without falling into the exact same problem of it only describing how scary the weapon looks.
Not at all. I'd define it based on sustained rate-of-fire including reload, and general suitability for engaging/killing unarmored human targets at short range.
But what would that actually accomplish? A ban on firearms within those constraints would never pass. (And honestly, it shouldn't pass. At some point the guns themselves aren't the problem.)
Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it was right or should be repeated.
Obviously. Nobody disputes that.
Sometimes the past got it right.
So merely pointing out that sometimes the past got it wrong doesn't make any particular argument about gun rights. And tangents about beating people or dunking people are just irrelevant; in support of a claim nobody is disputing.
Define assault weapons for me
I think we both know that is pointless.
The solution to american gun violence isn't going to come from a ban on X, for some definition of X.
As for towns in territories, it used to be constitutional and legal to literally own and whip/beat another human being. Not all laws are just. Not all laws are constitutional.
And?
I really don't care for Siri, nor the fact that the computer will have to actively listen in 24/7 to support that.
Quick, someone read the new OSX EULA... and see all the fun stuff in there to allow Siri to work in OSX. Will it by default want to upload all your contacts and browsing search terms and the apps you use, and your calendar events, and your current location, etc to apple? I can't imagine it won't want to do that.
A lot of the crap in the Windows 10 EULA was to give Cortana the data it would need to operate. I assume Apple will have to do the same for Siri now.
It's going to be interesting to see how people react. Will we have big long /. tirades from long time Mac users ditching OSX and raging about OSX spyware? I doubt it. Instead we'll get gushing reviews about how they asked Siri on their laptop to find something, and then 2 days later when they tried to find that same something on their phone Siri "remembered" what they were looking for (on their desktop) and suggested it!
You are a complete moron.
I'm not the poster you are replying to. But actually no. You are mis-reading his post.
His point was that the gun legislation that passed was only toothless and pointless because of the gun lobby.
The assault weapons ban only banned what the weapons look like and little more
Because of the gun lobby.
but all the existing high capacity mags were grandfathered in.
Because of the gun lobby.
The exact same gun claimed to be an assault weapon in this case ( AR15) could have the stock changed and flash suppressor removed and not be considered an assault weapon even though the functioning mechanics would be identical.
Because of the gun lobby.
Bottom line, the gun lobby is MORE responsible for that piece of shit legislation than the anti-gun lobby. They lobbied until it was pointless, and then laughed all the way home when it passed.
As for places with no guns, your own home as long as all legal residents agree
Back in the 1880s entire towns were gun free zones.
"You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," -- regarding Tombstone, AZ
And drinking establishments have traditionally had rules about turning in your weapons also going back to the "wild west".
GoG doesn't just have random titles on for 0.00. It kind of makes a big deal out of "this title free to anyone who clicks on it today".
I came here to confirm someone would have posted this.
You did not disappoint.
Its not impossible we would leave a trace - just exceedingly unlikely and that likelihood skyrocketed in the last century
I'm going to disagree on the "exceedingly" part of the exceedingly unlikely, but overall I think we agree. Every other species has literally had to die 'just-so' with its eminently bio-degradable body in just the right circumstances to leave a trace. Primitive humans are so much easier to to spot because even without bodies they moved the earth around, and left artifacts of pottery and metal, and shaped stone arrowheads, etc.
Modern humanity ... is going to leave a lot more behind, and jumbled together in ways that nothing else ever has. A freight train parked in a tunnel, collapses over time... and its hard to imagine what that's going to leave behind. Mere thousands years it might easily still be recognizeable as a train, and even some of its cargo recoverable. Millions of years out... if water isn't running through it, if air isn't running through it... if it just gets slowly crushed... you are still going to have this half mile line of rust, iron, magnesium, that defies explanation. And it'll take is one plastic switch or length of wire, bit of metal -- perhaps an engine part trapped with some oil... that gets trapped "just so".
As you said, the odds we leave trace behind has skyrocketed. I think that's all i'm saying too. No gaurantee we're still discoverable 100M years out... but if i had to pick a species as having odds of leaving traces that are discovered 100M years out... i'd say humans hands down.
They might not find a human skeleton... but they're likely going to know something was here.
As I replied elsewhere in the thread... we've got 500 million old trilobite fossils, and mosquitos and lizards in amber from 100 million years ago.
All it will take to prove humans had technology 100M years from now is some piece of modern garbage -- to leave its imprint in some mud somewhere to become part of the fossil record, or get encased in amber, or get otherwise sealed away somewhere where it won't erode or corrode, somewhere dry, somewhere cold, somewhere airtight, somewhere in darkness. It will happen.
The longer the timeline, the less the odds that something recognisable is found.
A yet we have fossile records of soft creatures from half a billion years ago. I can't say we will definitely leave a trace... but you can't definitively say there won't be one either.
Hell... even just a landfill full of e-waste... even if its completely "disintegrated" and the elements compressed and formed into a layer of rock ... just the presence of all those elements, metals, rare-earths all jumbled together; in higher density than surrounding areas... all localized in one spot in one layer of the geological record ... with no natural explanation for how or why they got there ... with odd isotope ratios that all combine to defy natural explanation. Yet 500 meters away in every direction the same layer of rock is perfectly unremarkable.
Diamonds degrade and oxidize. They can even burn, smoulder, melt, or simply lose their structure over time at human-livable pressures and temperatures.
Yes all true. While under other conditions they can last a billion years.
There is no such thing as a fire proof safe.
Your point? I'm not suggesting we actually put it in a fire. I'm suggesting it finds itself stuck in an airtight watertight space for a few 10s of millions of years. Precisely where it won't oxidize.
There are very few places 65 million years is stable enough to not crush your experiment
What experiment? I'm not trying to place something for 100M years. I'm looking instead at the odds that something of our creation will randomly find itself in one of those "very few places" and get preserved through chance rather than by design. The entire human race is the experiment.
Even if everything was in a perfectly sealed bunker on the moon it would still happen.
And yet, chance gives us perfectly preserved trilobite fossiles half a billion years old. But.. but... rocks erode... rain, water, even wind... will weather away a mountain.... yet the fossils still exist. We have lizards trapped in amber that are 100M years old.
Some of the diamonds will be crushed. others melted, others dissolved or turned to graphite... but some won't. Some will find some inert stable corner of the world away from heat and light and water and wind. And they'll just sit there.
Could I tell you where to put something so that it would reliably survive 100M years? Nope. But can you credibly tell me nothing survives that long... of course not. We have all kinds of 100M year old traces of even the most fragile biological systems that found somewhere stable enough to ride out the years so we could find them. Insects in Amber for example. You think a lego minifig wouldn't hold up in amber?
That skepticism should be applied to yourself before criticizing others.
That skepticism was about the scale of gravitational time dilation effects... what did you think it was about?
Platinum jewelry vs 100m years of volcanoes
Why do you think there is going to be a bunch of volcanoes going off everywhere? Some places sure. 100 million years from now there'll be whole new mountain ranges somewhere.
Other places ... not.
Several mountain ranges are upwards of a 2 and even 3 billion years old.
As much as some parts of the world will change in 100M years, other parts will be extremely stable. What do you think the Appalachian mountains looked like 100M years ago? Pretty much the same as they do now.
Something buried deep in a mine in the appalacians... isn't going to be affected much by 100M years worth of volcanoes going on somewhere else.
"are both less than a century old"
I gave 3 examples. But yes all 3 are less than a century old yes.
Although I'd expect platinum jewelry and cut diamonds and other stones (even without laser engraving) would survive just fine... and we've had that for a decent while now.
"Not to mention it is utterly silly to assume that another species in a different environment would have similar technologies to us"
I didn't assume that. I was merely arguing that humanity should leave ample traces that will last 100M years. I wasn't making an argument about dinosaurs.
You are underestimating just how massive an amount of deep time 65-million years was.
What would a radioactive waste storage look like in a 100M years? Ridiculously stable. Dry. Sealed from elements. Even if it literally just disintegrated in place, the odd mix and ratios of remaining isotopes at the site, surrounded by solid geologically stable rock millions of years older... would clearly suggest something unnatural.
Or perhaps a lego mini-fig -- tey'll soon outnumber humans after all.
http://xkcd.com/1281/
Surely bunches of those highly stable bits of plastic will find themselves some place safe to hide... preserved in amber, or tarpits, or trapped in some glacier, at the bottom of the ocean, or in a salt mine... there are billions of them, so probably all of those things will happen.
And we have things like modern jewelry. Laser engraved diamonds, set in platinum bands. Stored inside fire proof safes... some which would end up buried in stable places... even bunkers. What's 65 million years going to do to that?
Secondly - your argument is flawed because that's not how time works, time is relative and doesn't happen at a constant rate. Planets that rotate their stars slower have physically existed longer than ones that move slower. So two planets around the same star, in different orbits, which orbit in the same timeframe, that formed together at the same time - the outer one will be significantly younger because time slows down as you speed up. It may be a matter of seconds per rotation - but there's been many billions of rotations for those to add up.
Ok... so lets put some figures into those numbers ... say 11 seconds for "a matter of seconds". And how about 4.6 billion for for "many billions" as that's the age of our solar system measured from earth's perspective at least.
11 seconds x 4.6 billion rotations = 1603 years. I don't think we need to worry too much about relative ages of the planets.
This is, actually, one reason why - if there is life on Io or Europa - that life is likely to be "bacterial" rather than fishes - those moons circle a massive planet, any life there has had significantly less time to evolve than life on earth has had. No, I don't feel like doing the math to figure out how much.
You really think its going to be billions of years though? I'm pretty skeptical. Maybe you should do the math.
Actually... to follow up...
Is there a way to do this without storing the password itself?
The most usual password change mechanisms require you to enter the previous password to set the new one -- it would be easy to hang onto the plaintext of the old to do analysis against the proposed new password for the duration of that dialog.
This would not be a major issue with respect to hackers because they'd need your old password to get into the dialog in the first place.
And presumably you might be able to bypass this distance "feature" if you deliberately chose to use the forgot password reset feature to update your passwords; as the system wouldn't have your old password to compare with; so the system wouldn't enforce that rule in this scenario.
Is there a way to do this without storing the password itself?
Yes.
Given the new password, calculate "nearby" passwords and see if you come up with the old password hash.
E.g. if your original password is 'stupid', and you try to enter new password as 'stupid2', then you can drop the '2' and see if 'stupid' gets you the original hash; which it would.
So you could do some screening for at least trivial pw modifications without storing anything more than normal. hamming distances of one or two wouldn't take too much power to brute force.
But I expect your worst fear is right-- most systems that have this feature probably do store your password(s) somewhere to facilitate the feature. Just another reason to use a password safe with garbage passwords.
1. That would eat away at hardware cosole sales. MS won't go for that.
I *think* Microsoft consoles are sold at a loss, for the first couple years anyway and they make it back on xbox live and game sales -- they probably don't really care about lost sales of actual consoles... that's just the platform for their profit centers not an important profit center unto itself.
2. The whole point of consoles is that you can develop for a specific set of hardware
Console dev's still would do just that. This doesn't change that.
3. MS may try to block systems that aren't fast enough but some will get through.
Probably. But so what? The "default" reference platform will still be the actual physical xbox. If your PC doesn't measure up, that's on you.
many games simply were not made to handle systems that are too slow or too fast (thugh like the above, software running too fast is a problem that can be tackled).
Its been a while since this really mattered for most games. And its a challenge that other systems have tackled Wii-ware for example, did a truly brilliant job of it. The timing on some of the emulators is a bit dodgy ... but playing the NES and SNES games on Wii U ... i coasted through levels on pure childhood -honed muscle memory and the timing was perfect.
4. Cheating on PC games is a big problem, but because consoles are closed, it is much less of a problem there. This move would dramatically increase the instances of hacking in online Xbox One games that end up on PC.
The xbox would probably run in a sandbox... maybe a lightweight hyper-visor like separation. MS would definitely do its best to shield the xbox "machine" from the host OS. But yeah... it would probably make hacking more of a problem than it currently is. Then again.. lot of online xbox one games are already trying cross-platforminess with PC so that door is already open. And an xbox VM running the xbox title, instead of a "PC port" is probably going to be more secure.
For me, I'm not interested. I don't want an xbox live *subscription*. I don't want upcoming games that are currently being ported to PC to disappear from steam etc because they think I'll just run xbox on my PC. I won't. So I'm going to lose access to some titles.
Basically for non-xbox using pc gamers this could be a shitshow for pc gaming if manages to disrupt proper PC game development. (e.g. if enough PC gamers buy into it.)
But I can also see the appeal for xbox users -- being able to play their xbox games on their pcs and laptops; etc that will appeal to them. And it makes good sense for MS to cater to it.
A taxi company with an app is still a taxi company.
Indeed, many cab companies now have apps -- I've booked cab rides by app on 3 continents now. Same essential features as uber... book a ride online (set time, pickup / destination addresses); see confirmations, see if a cab has been dispatched to you, see where available cars are on the map... ; leave feedback on the driver...
Its all really quite funny as uber's arguments about what make it 'uniquenly not a taxi' become even more strained and ridiculous then they already were.
I've been struggling with this for ages.
And the answer is yes it does matter; even if we assumed it's not reverse engineerable.
1) You WILL run into situations that require passwords that reject your formula. Your formula has a digit ... they don't allow a digit. Or your forumula is too long, or too short, or needs a capital letter, or can't contain a fraction of your user name or whatever.
2) You WILL run into situations that require password rotation. And some will be smart enough to reject last months password with an incremented counter; or swapping back and forth. ;) Some will even demand high "distance" from previous passwords.
3) You WILL run into sites that are breached.
4) Some of these sites will use aggressive lockouts if you guess wrong. Making trying a few variations painful.
5) Some times you will need to enter the some passwords using truly irritating input mechanisms; alternate keyboard layouts, touch screens,
6) Some passwords need to be much more secure than others. Some passwords need to be entered much more often than others.
Between these your basically fucked. If you have a sufficiently large pool of passwords to remember, eventually your formula will have so many exceptions that your having to remember them all is just as mentally taxing as remember random passwords.
Ok... site A is the formula with a 12 on the end, because it needs to be changed once a month. Next month will be 13... Site B was hacked, so I can't use the formula on that one... because that password is compromised. Site C needs to use the formula but omit all the digits and special characters... etc etc...
I have easily upwards of 200 passwords. Registrars, utilities, domains, pin numbers, service accounts, email addresses, cloud services, forums, games, etc. I still use a few mental hashes methods for some of the more common/less important that I use -- but they all go into a password manager now. Because there list of exceptions and modifications to the formula to cope with the 6 issues above combined to be nearly as overwhelming as memorizing the passwords themselves.
So I use a password manager and that works well.
These days i still have one major issue:
My email address is too easy. Given its status as a password reset for other accounts it merits a strong password, that isn't easily memorized. IT has this.
But conversely, I need to check it very regularly, from my smartphone. Entering a long cumbersome passphrase into a smartphone touchscreen 100x a day is simply not viable. I don't yet have an acceptable solution to this.
So losing my smartphone is the weakspot. Its password protected and fingerprint protected. But those are both weaker than I'd like. But I simply cannot function with having to use TFA and long passphrases everytime i check my email.