The long answer: they are maximizing their profits and know that they could get more customers by being reasonable but if they are unreasonable they can ultimately extract more money. Therefore, all challenges to that system must be destroyed to ensure the future of maximized profits.
then maybe he should have abandoned his 'my side good, your side bad' montra.
It's my understanding that the shooter was angry with Trump himself and wanted to hurt him. It's stupid that he short at the senators because Trump doesn't even care about them.
Robo-calls could be solved using 80s technology but never has been because not only is there no incentive to do it but they are paid to allow it to happen. How hard is it to create a network that actually verifies if the sender is giving the correct number? Forget global issues, the problem still exists inside the USA which is the most litigious nation! A simple contract between networks could ensure that allowed fraud would result in financial damages.
Think about this: we don't have this problem with computers, so why do we have it with telephones?
In a couple of races, the person who got the outright most 1st choice votes lost the election. I can certainly see situations where this happens and it creates a sense of lack of representation.
It's possible but I think that's more of an issue with how information is presented. It would be better for the media to show voting results as issues rather than just their names.
It also tends to result in a lot of candidates, often with widely overlapping stands on issues. The leading candidates seem prone to co-opt ideas of marginal candidates, which in theory is good because it means that they're adopting issues important to minority (small, not just racial) constituencies. But in practice it felt like me-too-ism and not sincere adoption of those platform ideas.
This is part of the campaigning reform that is also badly needed. This could be cleared up by a shorter campaigning period and a requirement of layout out your "platform" in writing that everyone can read online upon entering the race (which would be a set date). I would say addendums could be made but they would need to be separated.
I also think it prevented meaningful debate on issues during the campaign. 3 of the 5 candidates seemed pretty interchangeable, and I think this kept the debates from being very meaningful, and most of the 3 wound up ultimately supporting one candidate by the final round of voting.
Debates need to be fixed too. I think the realtime aspect needs to be removed because it promotes showmen rather than thoughtful answers. Human psychology is complex and we need to account for it.
I'd almost prefer a open runoff system, where "round 1" was an election similar to a US primary but not party based (ie, the winners could in theory be members of the same party). Round 1 would reduce the field to the top 3 vote getters, and then round 2 would choose the winner. I think this would reduce the field of minor variant candidates and the second round campaigning would force the candidates to provide more substantive differentiation, and spend less time me-tooing similar candidate positions.
Well, almost anything would be better than what we have, so seems like a decent idea.
There can be no real debate about where exactly James Hodgkinson got the ideas that made trying to murder a dozen Republican politicians seem not totally unreasonable. He got them from perfectly mainstream political and intellectual leaders of the Democratic party.
If you have to tell us then it's obviously debatable.
Anyone with half a brain knew all along that it was only a matter of time before someone started taking their manipulative nonsense seriously, as well as the horrific results that would ensue.
Hyper-partisanship is a problem and yes, I know that violence is going to occur but not for the reason you believe. The truth of the matter is that the less representative the government is of it's people, the more prone people are to violence. Right now we have a very low-representation government. This has been done though a number of ways of filtering who and what people can vote for.
* First-past-the-poll voting is reductive and always result in a two party system. You can't vote for the people you want, just the people you agree with more. * Gerrymandering heavily distorts representation to a minority. * Keeping elections on a workday excludes many of the working poor by making it difficult as everyone rushes to vote at night. * Adding registration excludes people by default and photo ID requirements exclude more poor people.
The problem is that's just for the voting system itself, not even how politicians campaign or are selected. Anyway, when you have a highly unrepresentative group in power, there are going to be people who feel cheated (because in a very real way they have been cheated out of accurate representation) and will express themselves with violence.
Are you too rebellious and anti-authoritarian? Here, have a timidity cocktail. Are you too smart and logical, and impervious to manipulation via base desires? Here, have the Trump cocktail.
Considering we don't even know which genes make people tall or short, I'm not concerned.
Intel won't even allow people to disable IME, let alone give them the option of how to do it. They could solve this problem a bunch different ways with ease but the point is that Intel does not want to allow you to disable IME.
Seems like posting that is just an easy way to be dismissive of other people's views. Honestly, couldn't I just claim that your post what's truly whiny in this situation?
The big advantage of Linux is that you can customize it to do what you want. "Linux on Galaxy" is a half-assed measure to win over... somebody. Not sure who they think they are winning over but it's not the people who want to run Linux on their phones because it's still a proprietary system just with a sandbox. However, if they didn't do this properly, then you can expect to see this phone model get rooted upon it's release.
Intel's ME runs all the time because it has system reasons for doing so.
It only has reason to run during the initial boot sequence. This has been verified and yet IME still runs even if you disable ATM.
The thing that freaks out most people (remote administration) is controlled by the user. This can easily be verified by a network that doesn't respond to anything when it is disabled.
IME monitors packets and only acts when it gets the proper packet sequence. The stars will burn out long before you're done enumerating every packet value.
At that point you are limited to physical attacks that require someone to already own your machine.
Permanently disconnecting your computers from all networks and external devices is the only real option here. A compromised installer, updater or USB device could easily result in a permanently owned box. At that point the only option is to replace your CPU... unless you are using a laptop in which case you need to replace your laptop.
We have security researchers who decry the evil of Intel ME.
The part they decry more than anything else is that it cannot be disabled. Seriously, this is the biggest issue about IME is that it is designed to always run no matter what and if it's not running, the rest of the system is prevented from running.
You may think it's cool but doing so is as stupid as thinking, "that's an awesome gun" when someone has one pointed at your head.
This Management Engine stuff just gets scarier and scarier. Just like intentional backdoors in encryption WILL be found and exploited, these undocumented "systems" within our systems will be cracked and the result can and will be DEVASTATING.
You are now finally on the same page that computer scientists have been on for over a decade. It's been repeated many times that it's not a question of "if" it will be compromised but rather "when".
The fact that you are only just started freaking out clearly exemplifies the problem: the general public doesn't care about security until it's too late and they won't listen to experts.
This could potentially give people full access to the Intel Insider core which is what all the 4K DRM relies on.
I hope after IME is fully pwn3d that people will start taking a crack at AMD's PSP because I would like to have a fully open system but I refuse to financially support Intel due to their highly unethical and anti-competitive behavior.
People seem to praise paper ballots like they are flawless but they forget that ballot box stuffing and corrupt vote counters existed before we invented the computer.
What we need is a hybrid system of human readable votes and computerized automation. While generally hyped as a technology a information for a blockchain could be stored both on the paper ballot and voting machine memory to ensure no votes had been inserted, erased or altered. Using this methodology with a series of isolated single microcontroller systems not just air-gapped but lacking the basic hardware needed for network communication would combined with signed binaries and radiation-hardened software (yes, that's a thing) would radically improve security.
We have the technology to fix this problem and remove all single points of failure but have yet to do it.
I'm excited about another great year of Black Friday shopping! I mean, I already bought the pepper spray I'm going to use on other shoppers and everything!;)
What he should be asking is why this happened. Working backwards we know that Corporations rarely do things that aren't in the interest of profit which means there was a demand for this feature. Why was there a sudden demand for iron clad smartphone security? Well strong encryption didn't start showing up in smartphones until after the exposure of a massive surveillance apparatus.
Now, you can kill the messenger but it's the reality that is the real problem: people don't want to live in a surveillance state!
The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
Three times more powerful than any other battery on Earth,
They've finally created a battery for a smartphone with an AMD chip! ;)
Way to obfuscate the argument and conflate points! Well done, Obfuscant.
Why not COMPETE with the illegal add-ons?
People just want easy access to content.
The short answer: "because FUCK YOU, that's why!"
The long answer: they are maximizing their profits and know that they could get more customers by being reasonable but if they are unreasonable they can ultimately extract more money. Therefore, all challenges to that system must be destroyed to ensure the future of maximized profits.
TL;DR: It's simple greed.
...the company announced that the train engineer will commit seppuku.
Stop being culturally insensitive! They commit Sudoku. ;)
then maybe he should have abandoned his 'my side good, your side bad' montra.
It's my understanding that the shooter was angry with Trump himself and wanted to hurt him. It's stupid that he short at the senators because Trump doesn't even care about them.
Robo-calls could be solved using 80s technology but never has been because not only is there no incentive to do it but they are paid to allow it to happen. How hard is it to create a network that actually verifies if the sender is giving the correct number? Forget global issues, the problem still exists inside the USA which is the most litigious nation! A simple contract between networks could ensure that allowed fraud would result in financial damages.
Think about this: we don't have this problem with computers, so why do we have it with telephones?
In a couple of races, the person who got the outright most 1st choice votes lost the election. I can certainly see situations where this happens and it creates a sense of lack of representation.
It's possible but I think that's more of an issue with how information is presented. It would be better for the media to show voting results as issues rather than just their names.
It also tends to result in a lot of candidates, often with widely overlapping stands on issues. The leading candidates seem prone to co-opt ideas of marginal candidates, which in theory is good because it means that they're adopting issues important to minority (small, not just racial) constituencies. But in practice it felt like me-too-ism and not sincere adoption of those platform ideas.
This is part of the campaigning reform that is also badly needed. This could be cleared up by a shorter campaigning period and a requirement of layout out your "platform" in writing that everyone can read online upon entering the race (which would be a set date). I would say addendums could be made but they would need to be separated.
I also think it prevented meaningful debate on issues during the campaign. 3 of the 5 candidates seemed pretty interchangeable, and I think this kept the debates from being very meaningful, and most of the 3 wound up ultimately supporting one candidate by the final round of voting.
Debates need to be fixed too. I think the realtime aspect needs to be removed because it promotes showmen rather than thoughtful answers. Human psychology is complex and we need to account for it.
I'd almost prefer a open runoff system, where "round 1" was an election similar to a US primary but not party based (ie, the winners could in theory be members of the same party). Round 1 would reduce the field to the top 3 vote getters, and then round 2 would choose the winner. I think this would reduce the field of minor variant candidates and the second round campaigning would force the candidates to provide more substantive differentiation, and spend less time me-tooing similar candidate positions.
Well, almost anything would be better than what we have, so seems like a decent idea.
There can be no real debate about where exactly James Hodgkinson got the ideas that made trying to murder a dozen Republican politicians seem not totally unreasonable. He got them from perfectly mainstream political and intellectual leaders of the Democratic party.
If you have to tell us then it's obviously debatable.
Anyone with half a brain knew all along that it was only a matter of time before someone started taking their manipulative nonsense seriously, as well as the horrific results that would ensue.
Hyper-partisanship is a problem and yes, I know that violence is going to occur but not for the reason you believe. The truth of the matter is that the less representative the government is of it's people, the more prone people are to violence. Right now we have a very low-representation government. This has been done though a number of ways of filtering who and what people can vote for.
* First-past-the-poll voting is reductive and always result in a two party system. You can't vote for the people you want, just the people you agree with more.
* Gerrymandering heavily distorts representation to a minority.
* Keeping elections on a workday excludes many of the working poor by making it difficult as everyone rushes to vote at night.
* Adding registration excludes people by default and photo ID requirements exclude more poor people.
The problem is that's just for the voting system itself, not even how politicians campaign or are selected. Anyway, when you have a highly unrepresentative group in power, there are going to be people who feel cheated (because in a very real way they have been cheated out of accurate representation) and will express themselves with violence.
Are you too rebellious and anti-authoritarian? Here, have a timidity cocktail. Are you too smart and logical, and impervious to manipulation via base desires? Here, have the Trump cocktail.
Considering we don't even know which genes make people tall or short, I'm not concerned.
Hillary is very fond of saying "Mistakes were made" but she has never once said "I made a mistake."
Given the current state of the government, it is not her faults that you need to be worrying about.
Some features are used more than others. ;)
Another big hole IMHO is there is no native support for garbage collected languages yet.
LMAO! relying on GC is foolishness for sure.
It turns out a massive eruption at Yellowstone would only wipe out the part of the country that us coastal elitist don't care about! #WhoNeedsFoodAnyway ;)
Intel won't even allow people to disable IME, let alone give them the option of how to do it. They could solve this problem a bunch different ways with ease but the point is that Intel does not want to allow you to disable IME.
Sounds like whining.
Seems like posting that is just an easy way to be dismissive of other people's views. Honestly, couldn't I just claim that your post what's truly whiny in this situation?
The big advantage of Linux is that you can customize it to do what you want. "Linux on Galaxy" is a half-assed measure to win over... somebody. Not sure who they think they are winning over but it's not the people who want to run Linux on their phones because it's still a proprietary system just with a sandbox. However, if they didn't do this properly, then you can expect to see this phone model get rooted upon it's release.
Intel's ME runs all the time because it has system reasons for doing so.
It only has reason to run during the initial boot sequence. This has been verified and yet IME still runs even if you disable ATM.
The thing that freaks out most people (remote administration) is controlled by the user. This can easily be verified by a network that doesn't respond to anything when it is disabled.
IME monitors packets and only acts when it gets the proper packet sequence. The stars will burn out long before you're done enumerating every packet value.
At that point you are limited to physical attacks that require someone to already own your machine.
Permanently disconnecting your computers from all networks and external devices is the only real option here. A compromised installer, updater or USB device could easily result in a permanently owned box. At that point the only option is to replace your CPU... unless you are using a laptop in which case you need to replace your laptop.
We have security researchers who decry the evil of Intel ME.
The part they decry more than anything else is that it cannot be disabled. Seriously, this is the biggest issue about IME is that it is designed to always run no matter what and if it's not running, the rest of the system is prevented from running.
You may think it's cool but doing so is as stupid as thinking, "that's an awesome gun" when someone has one pointed at your head.
How practical is it to execute code on ME?
For general applications, it's absolutely worthless. It doesn't even use the x86 architecture.
Is it possible to take advantage of this to not only stop the ME from spying, but to increase performance?
Realistically, no.
This Management Engine stuff just gets scarier and scarier. Just like intentional backdoors in encryption WILL be found and exploited, these undocumented "systems" within our systems will be cracked and the result can and will be DEVASTATING.
You are now finally on the same page that computer scientists have been on for over a decade. It's been repeated many times that it's not a question of "if" it will be compromised but rather "when".
The fact that you are only just started freaking out clearly exemplifies the problem: the general public doesn't care about security until it's too late and they won't listen to experts.
This could potentially give people full access to the Intel Insider core which is what all the 4K DRM relies on.
I hope after IME is fully pwn3d that people will start taking a crack at AMD's PSP because I would like to have a fully open system but I refuse to financially support Intel due to their highly unethical and anti-competitive behavior.
People seem to praise paper ballots like they are flawless but they forget that ballot box stuffing and corrupt vote counters existed before we invented the computer.
What we need is a hybrid system of human readable votes and computerized automation. While generally hyped as a technology a information for a blockchain could be stored both on the paper ballot and voting machine memory to ensure no votes had been inserted, erased or altered. Using this methodology with a series of isolated single microcontroller systems not just air-gapped but lacking the basic hardware needed for network communication would combined with signed binaries and radiation-hardened software (yes, that's a thing) would radically improve security.
We have the technology to fix this problem and remove all single points of failure but have yet to do it.
I'm excited about another great year of Black Friday shopping! I mean, I already bought the pepper spray I'm going to use on other shoppers and everything! ;)
What he should be asking is why this happened. Working backwards we know that Corporations rarely do things that aren't in the interest of profit which means there was a demand for this feature. Why was there a sudden demand for iron clad smartphone security? Well strong encryption didn't start showing up in smartphones until after the exposure of a massive surveillance apparatus.
Now, you can kill the messenger but it's the reality that is the real problem: people don't want to live in a surveillance state!
The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
We have a problem that the FBI is controlled by political ebb and tides.
Not only that, we have people who go around and invoke mono-spaced fonts "just because". It's madness, I tell you!
In a mad world, only the mad are sane.