What this proves is what people have been saying about updaters that come packaged with many applications: they are not secure. Updates need to be done using signed binaries, not simply signed executables. Signed executables on are nice but completely worthless if they are entirely optional. Also, actually checking the signature is a key element to the whole system which is oddly omitted on occasion.
A standardized system for applications to actually do software updates using the Windows Update system (and their secured servers) would be helpful to everyone. It's disappointing that MS doesn't make it a service for developers to buy into.
According to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), HMS Montrose has now entered a planned docking and refit period during which BAE Systems plc will replace her original DNA(1) gear with DNA(2), said to be "based on the system being fitted to the Royal Navy's powerful new Type 45 Destroyers". This means it will be based on fairly everyday hardware running legacy Windows OSes - people who have worked on these programmes inform us that both Win2k and XP will be in use across the fleet.
The right name is not cyber specialist, but rather priest.
Oh please, don't be an idiot. The government isn't dumb enough to rely on just some priest. For the money they are paying out, they are going to at least demand a cyber priest.;)
Is there even a word for this level of stupidity? The die-cision to use anything from Microsoft in a mission-critical environment, let alone a 16+ year old OS with a giant list of known exploits...
I believe the word you're looking for is "congressional".;)
The taxes can probably best be used reducing some other taxes, to create revenue neutrality. That will have the minimum impact on the economy consistent with reducing CO2 emissions.
The problem is that reducing CO2 emissions isn't enough. Society with have some growing pains but if you primary concern is the economy then you'll doom both the ecosystem and your precious economy that relies on it.
You can't burn carbon and then unburn it without expending energy, net.
Of course, that's why it would be solar powered.
Therefore, if you have non-fossil-fuel energy that can be used to replace fossil fuels, it's most efficient to do just that.
That's exactly the point, the make people realize that they would be far better off just using a non-fossil-fuel energy source! Perception is half the game. The other half is removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Without the social media to guide them, how will the defenders of the 1% find the evil terrorists?
I know you're being a dick but allow me to enlighten you. What they are doing is removing content that is used to recruit individuals to other sites where the real content lives. What social media is doing is taking down propaganda. The purpose is to prevent more people from being radicalized, not find radicals.
It seems I'm going to have to be that guy that tells other people, "these are private sites and they can do whatever they want to their own site"
If you don't like how site XYZ operates then please do not use it! There are plenty of websites out there and if none are to your liking then you can make your own.
Few politicians understand that science is something that we need to continually advance even if it there is no profit in it. This means you have to make them feel it's "worth it" somehow which leads to grand statements like,
we are on the verge of making one of the most profound, unprecedented, discoveries in history.
The only mystery here is how smart hackers can be so easily fooled by there own confirmation bias.
I'm in favor of carbon taxes. What I'm not keen on is pushing for technology to remove CO2 from the air in the near future.
Then what the hell are the taxes going to be used for? If there isn't a proper use for the taxes then they will be perceived as needless. Behavior is all about feedback loops.
That requires more energy than we got from creating the CO2 in the first place.
Which is why the taxes will be onerous and people will switch to non-CO2 producing energy sources.
It's only a good idea if we have a large surplus of energy we can't use to replace fossil fuel burning.
With thinking like that we'll lose much of the ecosystem.
There has been some debate whether the problems would have been caused by an actual bug, or if the people who experienced them simply had an unstable overclock
If it only happens when you overclock, it's not a bug, it's ID10T problem.
Well, there are many ways of answering that question, but the simplest way is that the poor pay for it, like everybody else.
so you're answer is to let them die. don't worry, i don't think you're heartless, just an idiot.
Places like Chile have about the same life expectancy as the US, but spend only about $100/month/person on healthcare.
Oh, well the conditions in two completely different countries must be the same and the things that kill people are identical! Oh wait. -_-
If you look at life expectancy by per capita healthcare spending, you'll see that beyond the level that Israel or Korea spend, spending more money on healthcare doesn't make people live longer or healthier; if anything, the opposite.
Health care by statistics? Now there's a bad plan.:)
If we want to get our life expectancy and level of health up, we ought to cut back on healthcare spending.
You are conflating the amount of money spent with money spent on effective health care.
Hey, thanks for confirming that you know jack shit about healthcare and politics.
Because tracing money like that means pretty much a complete loss of financial privacy.
LOL! You think anyone actually has "financial privacy" from the government? Good one. Besides, it only needs to apply to finances relating to politicians. Again, it's possible if you enforce the laws.
I certainly do. It's basic political science.
Then let's just aim for less corrupt. Perfection is the enemy of good.
Your claim that you have a solution that nobody else has thought of before
I've made no such claim, I simply stated you have written off the possibility of a better system than the current one without exception. I'm not looking for a perfect solution, I'm just looking for a better solution than we have.
That's correct. Your false premise is that the kinds of laws you envision are enforceable in a free society. They are not.
And why not?
Correct. And the essential link between donations and getting into power is people like you, namely people who advocate things like campaign finace reform and public financing of healthcare, because both of those give more and more power to corrupt politicians.
You're making the implication that it's impossible to have non-corrupt politicians.
So you're saying that I correctly anticipated your implicit proposal, have responded to it, and you lack good arguments to counter my response.
No, I'm saying you have already discounted all possibilities before knowing what they are. I'm not going to waste my time explaining and idea if you are going to refuse it even if it were the perfect solution.
The way to solve problems, including political corruption, is to reduce the size and power of government.
You may end up with less corruption but you also end up with significantly less public services. If medical care is completely privatized then who will pay for the people who cannot afford healthcare? Do you think the poor should just "die in the streets" because they cannot afford the medical treatment they need to live?
As I was saying, you're free to state your idea any time you like.
Why would I bother when you have already told me your response to them?
We're still stuck on some of your false premises, like The key part to laws is having them enforced. and Politicians get into power because of large, corrupt campaign donations.
1) it doesn't matter what laws you make, if they aren't enforced then they are just words on a page. This is a simple fact, not a false premise. 2) politicians get into power not by donations but it makes it much easier. in return they make laws that will ensure future donations. it's simple concept.
You bet: I go straight to blaming progressivism
then you aren't serious about solving any problems, just promoting your own political point of view.
Oh please, your viewpoint precluded the possibility of fixing campaign financing and goes straight to blaming an opposing political ideology. All this before ever asking how it could be fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
What this proves is what people have been saying about updaters that come packaged with many applications: they are not secure. Updates need to be done using signed binaries, not simply signed executables. Signed executables on are nice but completely worthless if they are entirely optional. Also, actually checking the signature is a key element to the whole system which is oddly omitted on occasion.
A standardized system for applications to actually do software updates using the Windows Update system (and their secured servers) would be helpful to everyone. It's disappointing that MS doesn't make it a service for developers to buy into.
The Register in 2009
According to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), HMS Montrose has now entered a planned docking and refit period during which BAE Systems plc will replace her original DNA(1) gear with DNA(2), said to be "based on the system being fitted to the Royal Navy's powerful new Type 45 Destroyers". This means it will be based on fairly everyday hardware running legacy Windows OSes - people who have worked on these programmes inform us that both Win2k and XP will be in use across the fleet.
The right name is not cyber specialist, but rather priest.
Oh please, don't be an idiot. The government isn't dumb enough to rely on just some priest. For the money they are paying out, they are going to at least demand a cyber priest. ;)
Is there even a word for this level of stupidity? The die-cision to use anything from Microsoft in a mission-critical environment, let alone a 16+ year old OS with a giant list of known exploits...
I believe the word you're looking for is "congressional". ;)
that we don't have any money for healthcare because that would be "big government" but we have trillions for "apps". -_-
"Now with 50% less burning!"
The taxes can probably best be used reducing some other taxes, to create revenue neutrality. That will have the minimum impact on the economy consistent with reducing CO2 emissions.
The problem is that reducing CO2 emissions isn't enough. Society with have some growing pains but if you primary concern is the economy then you'll doom both the ecosystem and your precious economy that relies on it.
You can't burn carbon and then unburn it without expending energy, net.
Of course, that's why it would be solar powered.
Therefore, if you have non-fossil-fuel energy that can be used to replace fossil fuels, it's most efficient to do just that.
That's exactly the point, the make people realize that they would be far better off just using a non-fossil-fuel energy source! Perception is half the game. The other half is removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Freedom fighter. The key part to terrorism isn't that you are breaking the law, it's that you are using terror as a tool.
terrorist
terrorism
Without the social media to guide them, how will the defenders of the 1% find the evil terrorists?
I know you're being a dick but allow me to enlighten you. What they are doing is removing content that is used to recruit individuals to other sites where the real content lives. What social media is doing is taking down propaganda. The purpose is to prevent more people from being radicalized, not find radicals.
It seems I'm going to have to be that guy that tells other people, "these are private sites and they can do whatever they want to their own site"
If you don't like how site XYZ operates then please do not use it! There are plenty of websites out there and if none are to your liking then you can make your own.
And they'll need to explain the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter/revolutionary/protester.
How do so few people have access to a dictionary?
terrorism
: the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
freedom fighter
: a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment
protest
: a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an idea or a course of action
Go live in Somalia where there isn't a government to tax you, retard.
Few politicians understand that science is something that we need to continually advance even if it there is no profit in it. This means you have to make them feel it's "worth it" somehow which leads to grand statements like,
we are on the verge of making one of the most profound, unprecedented, discoveries in history.
The only mystery here is how smart hackers can be so easily fooled by there own confirmation bias.
smartphone no make me dumb. me use smartphone now and me still smart. you no understand? we settle argument with guns! ;)
All the people that are wrong on the internet. DUTY CALLS!
I'm in favor of carbon taxes. What I'm not keen on is pushing for technology to remove CO2 from the air in the near future.
Then what the hell are the taxes going to be used for? If there isn't a proper use for the taxes then they will be perceived as needless. Behavior is all about feedback loops.
That requires more energy than we got from creating the CO2 in the first place.
Which is why the taxes will be onerous and people will switch to non-CO2 producing energy sources.
It's only a good idea if we have a large surplus of energy we can't use to replace fossil fuel burning.
With thinking like that we'll lose much of the ecosystem.
You seem unwilling to force real change.
"Within a short number of years, effectively, 100 per cent of communications are going to use encryption,"
Gee, I wonder why that is. -_-
Good luck, assholes.
There has been some debate whether the problems would have been caused by an actual bug, or if the people who experienced them simply had an unstable overclock
If it only happens when you overclock, it's not a bug, it's ID10T problem.
Well, there are many ways of answering that question, but the simplest way is that the poor pay for it, like everybody else.
so you're answer is to let them die. don't worry, i don't think you're heartless, just an idiot.
Places like Chile have about the same life expectancy as the US, but spend only about $100/month/person on healthcare.
Oh, well the conditions in two completely different countries must be the same and the things that kill people are identical! Oh wait. -_-
If you look at life expectancy by per capita healthcare spending, you'll see that beyond the level that Israel or Korea spend, spending more money on healthcare doesn't make people live longer or healthier; if anything, the opposite.
Health care by statistics? Now there's a bad plan. :)
If we want to get our life expectancy and level of health up, we ought to cut back on healthcare spending.
You are conflating the amount of money spent with money spent on effective health care.
Hey, thanks for confirming that you know jack shit about healthcare and politics.
Because tracing money like that means pretty much a complete loss of financial privacy.
LOL! You think anyone actually has "financial privacy" from the government? Good one. Besides, it only needs to apply to finances relating to politicians. Again, it's possible if you enforce the laws.
I certainly do. It's basic political science.
Then let's just aim for less corrupt. Perfection is the enemy of good.
Your claim that you have a solution that nobody else has thought of before
I've made no such claim, I simply stated you have written off the possibility of a better system than the current one without exception. I'm not looking for a perfect solution, I'm just looking for a better solution than we have.
That's correct. Your false premise is that the kinds of laws you envision are enforceable in a free society. They are not.
And why not?
Correct. And the essential link between donations and getting into power is people like you, namely people who advocate things like campaign finace reform and public financing of healthcare, because both of those give more and more power to corrupt politicians.
You're making the implication that it's impossible to have non-corrupt politicians.
So you're saying that I correctly anticipated your implicit proposal, have responded to it, and you lack good arguments to counter my response.
No, I'm saying you have already discounted all possibilities before knowing what they are. I'm not going to waste my time explaining and idea if you are going to refuse it even if it were the perfect solution.
The way to solve problems, including political corruption, is to reduce the size and power of government.
You may end up with less corruption but you also end up with significantly less public services. If medical care is completely privatized then who will pay for the people who cannot afford healthcare? Do you think the poor should just "die in the streets" because they cannot afford the medical treatment they need to live?
As I was saying, you're free to state your idea any time you like.
Why would I bother when you have already told me your response to them?
We're still stuck on some of your false premises, like The key part to laws is having them enforced. and Politicians get into power because of large, corrupt campaign donations.
1) it doesn't matter what laws you make, if they aren't enforced then they are just words on a page. This is a simple fact, not a false premise.
2) politicians get into power not by donations but it makes it much easier. in return they make laws that will ensure future donations. it's simple concept.
You bet: I go straight to blaming progressivism
then you aren't serious about solving any problems, just promoting your own political point of view.
Oh please, your viewpoint precluded the possibility of fixing campaign financing and goes straight to blaming an opposing political ideology. All this before ever asking how it could be fixed.