The shift points in which your car will shift to the next gear as ganhadude says, is not insignificant as well. You are likely more efficient driving at a slightly faster speed if your car will shift up to the next gear. Say doing 55 with the car at 1400 RPM vs doing 60 with the car at 800 RPM. Not all cars shift at the same point, but most US cars are designed to do very well at 55 MPH.
So you don't own a TV, watch DVDs, bluerays, use a cellphone, or drive a car? Good for you. As far as I am aware, there is no completely open source versions of those anywhere. Sure Androids use open source software, but the components inside aren't.
Interesting, because the link you gave, the second entry was for merriam-webster that says the definition 2a is "to be in a state of no progress or advancement", and the next 3 articles not related to the music band of the same name (Worldwide PC Sales Flatline, Gartner Says by Sci-Tech, Flatline Or Decline? by Wall Street Sector Selector, and US Treasurys Hold Flatline After FOMC Minutes by the Wall Street Journal) are all using it the same way as the submitter did. I would suggest you get around more.
Nah, flat-line only means dead in the medical industry. Everywhere else flatline means exactly how he used it -- there is neither advancement nor decline.
Haven't worked on HL7 in a few years. Is it still as bad as it was? It was so convoluted that no one supported most of the elements, and every vendor stuffed everything useful into the catch all Z segments?
Ah yes, HP. The company that once made printers that I would once highly recommend to everyone, to one that quickly changed into never recommending to anyone. How far you fell from your greatness in the 80's and early 90's to the crap you turned into now.
The new menu is supposed to encourage you to search, but the search is slow.
You sound like one of those winner who optimized their system by turning of the search indexer to make your system faster, even though in most cases after the first day you can't notice it. Well except that by turning it off, all your searches are painfully slow.
Native USB 3.0 support is great in theory, but I don't have any USB 3.0 devices yet.
I'm sure native support for USB was great in theory too, but I suppose you don't have any of those either. Personally, I have 3 USB 3.0 devices, thumb drive, external HDD dock, and HD camera.
as well as an ass-load of apps
Can you please link a picture to your ass so we can understand just how many apps that is? Is it a small 110 pounds worth, or is it 330 pounds worth of apps?
have a shit-ton of games
Again, please link a picture, you can use the service at http://scat.ly/ to host it for you.
I know that we don't see eye-to-eye on many topics hairy, but I'm definitely with you on this one -- mostly.
Computers have gotten easy enough to use that most people think they can operate one. These types of things didn't happen 25 years ago when people using computers actually knew what they were doing. It's not that users are stupid, because most of them aren't. It's just they don't know enough about their computer to keep themselves out of trouble, and they have no real incentive to learn before trying breaking stuff. Of course it's guys like you in your line of business that have to clean up after them as they learn the hard way.
I have to agree with hiding the file extensions is a stupid idea, and yes, I turn that off as one of the very first things I do when I touch a computer.
Less attention span has very little to do with Americans and just people in general. It comes from the multitasking that the younger generation gets thrown into. They just can't pay attention to any single one thing for a decent amount of time. They are so used to juggling 5 things at once, and the human brain just doesn't multitask well for 98% of the people out there; I did read that around 2% (numbers aren't accurate, but it was indeed a small percentage) of people can actually multitask 2 things at once with little degradation of performance in either task, but it didn't say how good they were doing those tasks to start with.
This assumes that false positives are costless. They aren't. Think: attorney's fees.
Then obviously the only solution to this problem is to make all attorney's free of charge. We have a large population of convicts that instead of stamping license plates, we can force them to be free attorney's to pay for their crimes, and they already have experience in the courtroom!
Perhaps, but having your electronics taken by the FBI for further analysis is usually enough of a pain in the ass that it might as well have been a punishment. And that of course assumes that you have nothing on anything electronic that would point to your guilt. As the linked PDFs claim, the vast majority of these cases when identified by IP address, and then served with a search warrant do indeed provide incriminating evidence.
You don't need beyond a reasonable doubt to get a search warrant, just just need probable cause. And as long a there are stupid people out there, there will always be a high probability that the guy/girl that owns is the registered subscriber with the ISP is either guilty, or someone living with them is guilty.
Ah yes, it's also an early step into allowing terrorists to hide child pornography in signed boot loaders so they can have the FBI raid whomever they want and send them away to prison if you have a political agenda they don't agree with. This was all planed by aliens who put cameras in our prisons because, as is proven fact, they enjoy a good anal probing.
Stoned. Whistler. Phanta. There are at least a half dozen others, and all their variants.
Secureboot makes the machine on my desk not mine... That is a problem. That you closed source people don't see this, is actually part of the problem.
I think I can say that I've likely contributed more to open source projects than the vast majority of even slashdot readers. Feel free to call me a closed source person if you wish however if that makes you sleep better at night.
FUD. Secure boot doesn't enable any of those crazy scenarios that you've mentioned. The user is still free to install software that does all the above even with secure boot enabled.
I don't understand why Microsoft requires secure boot. Care to explain?
Because, it is fairly easy -- especially with so much open source software out there -- to create malware that gets control of the system before the OS does. This malware will then hide itself, using hardware, to intercept any attempt to find it and virtualize the checks to fail. Simply, once in place, it is in control of your system, and the OS (or any anti-virus, etc) software from even being able to tell it is on your system at all. Basically, in the first moments you turn on your computer, you've lost the battle, and there is nothing any software can do to remove the malware, or even detect it is even on the system at all. Please note, this isn't just a Microsoft problem, you can have linux, unix, or OS/X, etc all rootkitted as well. It's just many linux folks don't understand the problem, don't care, and like spreading FUD because it hasn't affected them YET.
I mean the boot sector "virus"/"malware" thing is highly overrated. I've never seen one in the wild. The situation as is was just fine.
The security only runs one way. Once somebody can subvert the boot process in any way (and show me ONE device that hasn't been rooted) all malware need do is what it has always been doing. Take over the boot.
That is correct. Which is why the UEFI/BIOS needs to be able to be secure. It does this in a number of ways, one of which is secure boot, which verifies the executable that it passes control to after initialization is one that has been untampered with. This prevents any malware from trying to infect the system that can get control before the OS itself does.
Then IT checks the sig on Windows and tells it that "I'm the bootloader, you can trust me." and there isn't a 100% sure way to verify backwards.
You have the process backwards. UEFI/BIOS doesn't tell the bootloader that it can trust the UEFI/BIOS. The UEFI/BIOS checks and verifies the boot loader to make sure it's untampered with before handing off control to it. The trust the other way is implied/assumed.
We all know most vendors will still be flashing the BIOS/UEFI from Windows because anything else will be too much hassle for the end users.
It's pretty easy for UEFI makers to include the process to update itself within itself. If you don't have the know how to boot to your UEFI menu, then you really shouldn't be updating your UEFI/BIOS anyway. Really, it's not that difficult. Most are graphical, and pretty simple.
They will pretty much have to do it to get key revocation lists. Oh yea they talk now about secure pathways through secured supervisor modes but we know that if it is running Windows nothing on that CPU is really and truly secure.
I'm not sure why they would need a revocation list. There is a handful of keys and they won't ever be revoked. You can add keys (or remove them I suppose), but the list of signatures of untampered boot loaders shouldn't need to ever be revoked. Even in the case that such a process does need to be put into place, that would either have to be done through the UEFI/BIOS subsystem itself, or verified by the UEFI/BIOS system before commiting it.
And wait until the motherboard makers start encheapening the system. Remember when a physical write protect jumper was standard to protect flash BIOS? And a ROM portion with an emergency rescue reflash util? When was the last time you saw any of those protective measures on sonsumer equipment?
And you get what you pay for sometimes. Nothing stopping $.02 manufacturers from shipping UEFI/BIOSes preinfected either. Just because a solution doesn't solve the entire worlds problems shouldn't mean you don't implement it. This is a solution to one problem that simply put, can't be solved any other way. It's a good solution, but it doesn't turn smog infested, violence prone, poor cities into gleaming bastions of godlyness either.
Errrm...Almost all non-digital games for home enjoyment you pay one price for multiple people to enjoy it. Monopoly, card games, Dominoes, Chutes & Ladders, the list is nearly endless. Those gaming companies don't seem to have a problem with revenue
You should check that. Almost most of them have gone bankrupt or are in bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
The cars cheating, since they are google cars, so they have cameras on them updating google maps as they go. That's how they avoid the pedestrians.
There is already that exemption made for non-autonomous cars, I do not see why that would be different for autonomous cars.
Yes, but what happens when you use your autonomous car and there is a pedestrian there that wasn't on google maps???
The shift points in which your car will shift to the next gear as ganhadude says, is not insignificant as well. You are likely more efficient driving at a slightly faster speed if your car will shift up to the next gear. Say doing 55 with the car at 1400 RPM vs doing 60 with the car at 800 RPM. Not all cars shift at the same point, but most US cars are designed to do very well at 55 MPH.
So you don't own a TV, watch DVDs, bluerays, use a cellphone, or drive a car? Good for you. As far as I am aware, there is no completely open source versions of those anywhere. Sure Androids use open source software, but the components inside aren't.
Oh, and for the record, I'm 42.
Interesting, because the link you gave, the second entry was for merriam-webster that says the definition 2a is "to be in a state of no progress or advancement", and the next 3 articles not related to the music band of the same name (Worldwide PC Sales Flatline, Gartner Says by Sci-Tech, Flatline Or Decline? by Wall Street Sector Selector, and US Treasurys Hold Flatline After FOMC Minutes by the Wall Street Journal) are all using it the same way as the submitter did. I would suggest you get around more.
Nah, flat-line only means dead in the medical industry. Everywhere else flatline means exactly how he used it -- there is neither advancement nor decline.
Haven't worked on HL7 in a few years. Is it still as bad as it was? It was so convoluted that no one supported most of the elements, and every vendor stuffed everything useful into the catch all Z segments?
Ah yes, HP. The company that once made printers that I would once highly recommend to everyone, to one that quickly changed into never recommending to anyone. How far you fell from your greatness in the 80's and early 90's to the crap you turned into now.
The new menu is supposed to encourage you to search, but the search is slow.
You sound like one of those winner who optimized their system by turning of the search indexer to make your system faster, even though in most cases after the first day you can't notice it. Well except that by turning it off, all your searches are painfully slow.
Native USB 3.0 support is great in theory, but I don't have any USB 3.0 devices yet.
I'm sure native support for USB was great in theory too, but I suppose you don't have any of those either. Personally, I have 3 USB 3.0 devices, thumb drive, external HDD dock, and HD camera.
as well as an ass-load of apps
Can you please link a picture to your ass so we can understand just how many apps that is? Is it a small 110 pounds worth, or is it 330 pounds worth of apps?
have a shit-ton of games
Again, please link a picture, you can use the service at http://scat.ly/ to host it for you.
I know that we don't see eye-to-eye on many topics hairy, but I'm definitely with you on this one -- mostly.
Computers have gotten easy enough to use that most people think they can operate one. These types of things didn't happen 25 years ago when people using computers actually knew what they were doing. It's not that users are stupid, because most of them aren't. It's just they don't know enough about their computer to keep themselves out of trouble, and they have no real incentive to learn before trying breaking stuff. Of course it's guys like you in your line of business that have to clean up after them as they learn the hard way.
Windows and OS/X -- or roughly 99.8% of the PCs out there.
I have to agree with hiding the file extensions is a stupid idea, and yes, I turn that off as one of the very first things I do when I touch a computer.
Less attention span has very little to do with Americans and just people in general. It comes from the multitasking that the younger generation gets thrown into. They just can't pay attention to any single one thing for a decent amount of time. They are so used to juggling 5 things at once, and the human brain just doesn't multitask well for 98% of the people out there; I did read that around 2% (numbers aren't accurate, but it was indeed a small percentage) of people can actually multitask 2 things at once with little degradation of performance in either task, but it didn't say how good they were doing those tasks to start with.
14 years, with a 14 year extension if explicitly requested is reasonable.
This assumes that false positives are costless. They aren't. Think: attorney's fees.
Then obviously the only solution to this problem is to make all attorney's free of charge. We have a large population of convicts that instead of stamping license plates, we can force them to be free attorney's to pay for their crimes, and they already have experience in the courtroom!
My GUID seems to be faulty, an I borrow yours for a bit?
Perhaps, but having your electronics taken by the FBI for further analysis is usually enough of a pain in the ass that it might as well have been a punishment. And that of course assumes that you have nothing on anything electronic that would point to your guilt. As the linked PDFs claim, the vast majority of these cases when identified by IP address, and then served with a search warrant do indeed provide incriminating evidence.
You don't need beyond a reasonable doubt to get a search warrant, just just need probable cause. And as long a there are stupid people out there, there will always be a high probability that the guy/girl that owns is the registered subscriber with the ISP is either guilty, or someone living with them is guilty.
Ah yes, it's also an early step into allowing terrorists to hide child pornography in signed boot loaders so they can have the FBI raid whomever they want and send them away to prison if you have a political agenda they don't agree with. This was all planed by aliens who put cameras in our prisons because, as is proven fact, they enjoy a good anal probing.
From what I know there are none in the wild.
Stoned. Whistler. Phanta. There are at least a half dozen others, and all their variants.
Secureboot makes the machine on my desk not mine... That is a problem. That you closed source people don't see this, is actually part of the problem.
I think I can say that I've likely contributed more to open source projects than the vast majority of even slashdot readers. Feel free to call me a closed source person if you wish however if that makes you sleep better at night.
FUD. Secure boot doesn't enable any of those crazy scenarios that you've mentioned. The user is still free to install software that does all the above even with secure boot enabled.
I don't understand why Microsoft requires secure boot. Care to explain?
Because, it is fairly easy -- especially with so much open source software out there -- to create malware that gets control of the system before the OS does. This malware will then hide itself, using hardware, to intercept any attempt to find it and virtualize the checks to fail. Simply, once in place, it is in control of your system, and the OS (or any anti-virus, etc) software from even being able to tell it is on your system at all. Basically, in the first moments you turn on your computer, you've lost the battle, and there is nothing any software can do to remove the malware, or even detect it is even on the system at all. Please note, this isn't just a Microsoft problem, you can have linux, unix, or OS/X, etc all rootkitted as well. It's just many linux folks don't understand the problem, don't care, and like spreading FUD because it hasn't affected them YET.
I mean the boot sector "virus"/"malware" thing is highly overrated. I've never seen one in the wild. The situation as is was just fine.
I've seen many. In fact, it's pervasive enough that sony created one for it's own gain -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal
The security only runs one way. Once somebody can subvert the boot process in any way (and show me ONE device that hasn't been rooted) all malware need do is what it has always been doing. Take over the boot.
That is correct. Which is why the UEFI/BIOS needs to be able to be secure. It does this in a number of ways, one of which is secure boot, which verifies the executable that it passes control to after initialization is one that has been untampered with. This prevents any malware from trying to infect the system that can get control before the OS itself does.
Then IT checks the sig on Windows and tells it that "I'm the bootloader, you can trust me." and there isn't a 100% sure way to verify backwards.
You have the process backwards. UEFI/BIOS doesn't tell the bootloader that it can trust the UEFI/BIOS. The UEFI/BIOS checks and verifies the boot loader to make sure it's untampered with before handing off control to it. The trust the other way is implied/assumed.
We all know most vendors will still be flashing the BIOS/UEFI from Windows because anything else will be too much hassle for the end users.
It's pretty easy for UEFI makers to include the process to update itself within itself. If you don't have the know how to boot to your UEFI menu, then you really shouldn't be updating your UEFI/BIOS anyway. Really, it's not that difficult. Most are graphical, and pretty simple.
They will pretty much have to do it to get key revocation lists. Oh yea they talk now about secure pathways through secured supervisor modes but we know that if it is running Windows nothing on that CPU is really and truly secure.
I'm not sure why they would need a revocation list. There is a handful of keys and they won't ever be revoked. You can add keys (or remove them I suppose), but the list of signatures of untampered boot loaders shouldn't need to ever be revoked. Even in the case that such a process does need to be put into place, that would either have to be done through the UEFI/BIOS subsystem itself, or verified by the UEFI/BIOS system before commiting it.
And wait until the motherboard makers start encheapening the system. Remember when a physical write protect jumper was standard to protect flash BIOS? And a ROM portion with an emergency rescue reflash util? When was the last time you saw any of those protective measures on sonsumer equipment?
And you get what you pay for sometimes. Nothing stopping $.02 manufacturers from shipping UEFI/BIOSes preinfected either. Just because a solution doesn't solve the entire worlds problems shouldn't mean you don't implement it. This is a solution to one problem that simply put, can't be solved any other way. It's a good solution, but it doesn't turn smog infested, violence prone, poor cities into gleaming bastions of godlyness either.
Ah yes the union. Of course if the union came in, that all star team would get about the same pay as the all crap team. Gotta be fair and all.
Errrm...Almost all non-digital games for home enjoyment you pay one price for multiple people to enjoy it. Monopoly, card games, Dominoes, Chutes & Ladders, the list is nearly endless. Those gaming companies don't seem to have a problem with revenue
You should check that. Almost most of them have gone bankrupt or are in bankruptcy.