I get the feeling that they want people to switch out of their old contracts to a new one because the new contract is missing any mention of privacy. Someone should compare the terms of the contracts as this may be the start of them selling your info.
The fact that Lennart refuses to make his code anywhere near POSIX complaint is perhaps his one redeeming factor. It just means his projects will be easier to kill.;)
It has a lot of pitfalls but most are detailed in the manual. Unfortunately few people really RTFM or care *how* what they are doing works too much as opposed to that it works. In any language that's a problem.
It's a significantly larger problem for script languages rather than compiled languages.
Under the hypothetical situation that they somehow pull this off, there are significant problems with this idea. First, people change with time, some more than others but an AI that only learns about you from your past will be eternally stuck in time. Worse yet, if it encompasses a lifetime of experience it will be all of you at once which would result in many conflicting statements. Second, you don't want avatars connected to social media because even if they manage to be a proper representation of a person in time that never advances, well, it won't progress with society and may actually hold back social progress if it's unclear if it's an avatar speaking.
It's all very unlikely but it's an interesting thought experiment.
The best feature about humanity is that shitty people die and stay dead. Now you want to bring shitty people back from the grave? Well, when Hitlerbot sends the SS after you, tell the Nazis that I told you so.;)
While bad tutorials help make shitty coders, there will always be shitty coders. The question is then becomes, "how do we protect internet servers from shitty code?" The answer to this is with secure interfaces and we've failed at most levels.
Let's start at the top with web serving daemons. Web serving daemons (e.g. Apache) currently support script languages (e.g. PHP) which are a minefield of insecurity. The fact that they were happy to enable script language interpreters and execute them with the same level of privilege as the web serving daemon itself (by default at least) use without a second thought shows a lack of understanding about the dangers they hold.
The next level of insecurity is in the script language interpreters which are being invoked by the web serving daemons. Script language interpreters intended for use with web servers have only "recently" added the ability to restrict certain operations. However by default, even the most dangerous operations like the execution of text strings are enabled. The most egregious flaw I've seen is in PHP which allows ability to define the value of variables that are not explicitly requested. At no point was this a good idea.
Drilling down, we get to database daemons. Database daemons do not promote the use of a function call based interface but rather a text only interface. Frankly, anything goes with a text based interface which leaves it wide open to naughty inputs. A text interface is a wonderful concept for ease of use but it's just terrible for security.
I know that it's the shitty coders fault for writing shitty code but a defensive approach to design is something we should strive for to increase our level of security.
Probably the most difficulty somebody who wants to design/build motherboards will have is showing these companies that they have sufficient security systems and protocols in place that the processor and support chip manufacturers (if they're different) can provide you with the datasheets and other documents necessary to design systems without them becoming public knowledge (ie available to their competitors).
This is only a problem with x86. Go with stuff you can buy on the open market and you can build whatever you like and there is not BIOS/UEFI bullshit to deal with. x86 should not be a prerequisite since we're talking about Linux.
A public act by an organization ignoring robots.txt will only lead to the justification of other organizations ignoring robots.txt. Effectively ignoring it erodes the value of robots.txt. Sure, some underhanded people will ignore it but I don't see organizations openly ignoring it.
If you have an example of an organization completely ignoring robots.txt, do tell.
I RTFA and the source article and I didn't see anything to indicate they would be designing their own electronics. Instead, it seems like they will be building their own computer cases. Frankly, computer cases are far less important than the electronics that reside inside them. Having the CAD files to customize is nice but when their is a backdoor in every new x86 chip, it's kinda like putting on sunblock to protect your skin from the sun as you stare down a civilization ending 10000 meter tsunami wave.
In the future, when the world discovers the planet will be fubar'd in a year, these kind of short-term solutions will be on the table because they can be implemented quickly and can be used as a stopgap measure until we actually start fixing the planet. In the meantime, we need to actually be investing in actually fixing our atmosphere.
Frankly, I think this is an economic opportunity if only our governments would get onboard with the idea that if you pollute or your product pollutes then you should have the legal responsibility to clean it up. If this came to pass then an entire industry dedicated to removing pollution from the atmosphere would arise. You don't have to believe that it's destroying the planet, you just have to pay to clean up your mess or on the flip side, profit from cleaning up someone else's mess.
However Trump has promised to bring those coal mining jobs back and make Wales great again!
You misheard Trump because what he said was he was going to, "make whaling great again". It fits in perfectly with his eco-destruction agenda and he wants to give miners the job of extracting all the valuable gems that encrusted on every whale belly which he learned from watching a very serious documentary... animated by Disney.
The problem with this solution is that the companies are not getting the negative finacial feedback (punishment) that they need to correct their behavior.
IoT vendors will only secure their devices after it starts costing them money or are legally required to do so.
The best option is to high jack the IoT devices to DDoS their makers because it creates a direct feedback loop. The more insecure devices they sell, the more it will cost them to host their company's website(s). For extra points, only target their parent company.;)
Everyone involved is completely ignoring the fact that the companies involved were not properly secured. It doesn't take a "superhacker" to get past shitty security and we shouldn't be protecting companies with shitty security. Sure, punish the hacker but you need to also punish the executives that decided security shouldn't be the highest priority. When you put profit comes before security, you are asking, nay, begging to get hacked and that's exactly what happened here.
What we're seeing here is the result of feature creep being integrated into standards because the W3C is financed by donations of corporations. As a result they have lost their spine and the ability to say no to bad ideas. So now, the inmates are running the asylum.
"Ok, so we're all at the lab getting high when we ran out of weed and Jim started telling us about how you can hallucinate from licking the back of a frog...";)
What matters the most here is if the multiple universities begin to cooperate in their creation of textbooks. If they decide "I can't work with them" or "We should have our own!" then you are going to see the effort quickly stagnate because the effort required to make and revise these books is no small thing and each university will not have the expertise needed to create the books for every subject in the depth that is expected.
Slashdot Mirror
I get the feeling that they want people to switch out of their old contracts to a new one because the new contract is missing any mention of privacy. Someone should compare the terms of the contracts as this may be the start of them selling your info.
The fact that Lennart refuses to make his code anywhere near POSIX complaint is perhaps his one redeeming factor. It just means his projects will be easier to kill. ;)
EdgeX Foundry is unifying the marketplace around a common open framework
Isn't that what POSIX is for? If you write your code for POSIX, it'll run on almost anything.
I'm sure a bunch of masochists are getting off on that idea alone. ;)
It has a lot of pitfalls but most are detailed in the manual. Unfortunately few people really RTFM or care *how* what they are doing works too much as opposed to that it works. In any language that's a problem.
It's a significantly larger problem for script languages rather than compiled languages.
Under the hypothetical situation that they somehow pull this off, there are significant problems with this idea. First, people change with time, some more than others but an AI that only learns about you from your past will be eternally stuck in time. Worse yet, if it encompasses a lifetime of experience it will be all of you at once which would result in many conflicting statements. Second, you don't want avatars connected to social media because even if they manage to be a proper representation of a person in time that never advances, well, it won't progress with society and may actually hold back social progress if it's unclear if it's an avatar speaking.
It's all very unlikely but it's an interesting thought experiment.
The best feature about humanity is that shitty people die and stay dead. Now you want to bring shitty people back from the grave? Well, when Hitlerbot sends the SS after you, tell the Nazis that I told you so. ;)
While bad tutorials help make shitty coders, there will always be shitty coders. The question is then becomes, "how do we protect internet servers from shitty code?" The answer to this is with secure interfaces and we've failed at most levels.
Let's start at the top with web serving daemons. Web serving daemons (e.g. Apache) currently support script languages (e.g. PHP) which are a minefield of insecurity. The fact that they were happy to enable script language interpreters and execute them with the same level of privilege as the web serving daemon itself (by default at least) use without a second thought shows a lack of understanding about the dangers they hold.
The next level of insecurity is in the script language interpreters which are being invoked by the web serving daemons. Script language interpreters intended for use with web servers have only "recently" added the ability to restrict certain operations. However by default, even the most dangerous operations like the execution of text strings are enabled. The most egregious flaw I've seen is in PHP which allows ability to define the value of variables that are not explicitly requested. At no point was this a good idea.
Drilling down, we get to database daemons. Database daemons do not promote the use of a function call based interface but rather a text only interface. Frankly, anything goes with a text based interface which leaves it wide open to naughty inputs. A text interface is a wonderful concept for ease of use but it's just terrible for security.
I know that it's the shitty coders fault for writing shitty code but a defensive approach to design is something we should strive for to increase our level of security.
Do the Comcast execs believe the result of this monetary investment is worth replicating?
Probably the most difficulty somebody who wants to design/build motherboards will have is showing these companies that they have sufficient security systems and protocols in place that the processor and support chip manufacturers (if they're different) can provide you with the datasheets and other documents necessary to design systems without them becoming public knowledge (ie available to their competitors).
This is only a problem with x86. Go with stuff you can buy on the open market and you can build whatever you like and there is not BIOS/UEFI bullshit to deal with. x86 should not be a prerequisite since we're talking about Linux.
A public act by an organization ignoring robots.txt will only lead to the justification of other organizations ignoring robots.txt. Effectively ignoring it erodes the value of robots.txt. Sure, some underhanded people will ignore it but I don't see organizations openly ignoring it.
If you have an example of an organization completely ignoring robots.txt, do tell.
who can predict the future at this point.
literally anybody. it's getting it right that's difficult. ;)
I RTFA and the source article and I didn't see anything to indicate they would be designing their own electronics. Instead, it seems like they will be building their own computer cases. Frankly, computer cases are far less important than the electronics that reside inside them. Having the CAD files to customize is nice but when their is a backdoor in every new x86 chip, it's kinda like putting on sunblock to protect your skin from the sun as you stare down a civilization ending 10000 meter tsunami wave.
In the future, when the world discovers the planet will be fubar'd in a year, these kind of short-term solutions will be on the table because they can be implemented quickly and can be used as a stopgap measure until we actually start fixing the planet. In the meantime, we need to actually be investing in actually fixing our atmosphere.
Frankly, I think this is an economic opportunity if only our governments would get onboard with the idea that if you pollute or your product pollutes then you should have the legal responsibility to clean it up. If this came to pass then an entire industry dedicated to removing pollution from the atmosphere would arise. You don't have to believe that it's destroying the planet, you just have to pay to clean up your mess or on the flip side, profit from cleaning up someone else's mess.
You wanted to make jobs? This would make jobs.
However Trump has promised to bring those coal mining jobs back and make Wales great again!
You misheard Trump because what he said was he was going to, "make whaling great again". It fits in perfectly with his eco-destruction agenda and he wants to give miners the job of extracting all the valuable gems that encrusted on every whale belly which he learned from watching a very serious documentary... animated by Disney.
The problem with this solution is that the companies are not getting the negative finacial feedback (punishment) that they need to correct their behavior.
I've said it before but it's worth repeating.
IoT vendors will only secure their devices after it starts costing them money or are legally required to do so.
The best option is to high jack the IoT devices to DDoS their makers because it creates a direct feedback loop. The more insecure devices they sell, the more it will cost them to host their company's website(s). For extra points, only target their parent company. ;)
I guess it is time.
Everyone involved is completely ignoring the fact that the companies involved were not properly secured. It doesn't take a "superhacker" to get past shitty security and we shouldn't be protecting companies with shitty security. Sure, punish the hacker but you need to also punish the executives that decided security shouldn't be the highest priority. When you put profit comes before security, you are asking, nay, begging to get hacked and that's exactly what happened here.
What we're seeing here is the result of feature creep being integrated into standards because the W3C is financed by donations of corporations. As a result they have lost their spine and the ability to say no to bad ideas. So now, the inmates are running the asylum.
I heard that 3/4 of the people working on Windows 10 couldn't write code that compiles, so I understand why they are hiring from India. ;)
"Ok, so we're all at the lab getting high when we ran out of weed and Jim started telling us about how you can hallucinate from licking the back of a frog..." ;)
What matters the most here is if the multiple universities begin to cooperate in their creation of textbooks. If they decide "I can't work with them" or "We should have our own!" then you are going to see the effort quickly stagnate because the effort required to make and revise these books is no small thing and each university will not have the expertise needed to create the books for every subject in the depth that is expected.
Toyota Shows Off It's Semi for Hydrogen
They are certainly showwers. ;)
The startup claims that it had already ordered its own audit, which found âoeno material Tesla confidential information."
It's a good thing that understand the results doesn't hinge on that one word because that would be embarrassing. ;)
Is it just me or do criminals use the same tools as most other people? I'm not talking about people who know what's what, I just mean people.