"IMO the scariest scenario is NK allying with an adversary of the US and it's allies and giving them a small nuclear weapon to smuggle out"
Yeah, this isn't new or unique to the current confrontation. This is, in fact, the basis for our policy towards NK for decades. Extra points for you when you name the primary and most visible partner of the NK regimes involved.
"NK represents the first and what will likely be the largest failure of the UN and US policy. Continually ignoring the buildup of weapons and failing to find a solution to the artillery pointed at SK and Seoul, combined with support from two communist regime neighbors, has brought us to this place."
Amen. Decades of attempted appeasement and waiting for the NK regimes to come to their senses has led us to both the risk of further proliferation and danger to all peoples. The NPT should be more fully expanded to become nonnegotiable, binding on all nations, and specifically include enforcement and preventative measures. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric, the US is not likely to unilaterally use nuclear weapons, not is it, despite the fever dreams of the Left, likely even to use nuclear weapons as a first retaliatory response. We know the consequences of being the first, so far only, nation to actually use nuclear weapons. That is not lost on even the current Administration. Whatever else you may believe, such an act would be taken only after careful deliberation, and that itself makes the act much less acceptable. The US conventional forces are more than adequate to deal any aspiring nuclear state a crushing, fatally overwhelming blow in response, and it is doubtful any other nation would either oppose such a response nor even denounce it.
This is a failure of the UN, the nuclear capable nations, the NPT, and those nations that support and defend NK brinkmanship. Calling these nations to account is long overdue. Some have regularly, in their own language and in international forums, called for the destruction of the US. Aggression by these nations need not be tolerated, and their actions are being exposed now for us to consider as we move forward through this definitive era. Either we defend freedom or we perish, literally, for the Left doesn't use violence as a last resort, it uses it as the most effective tool to accomplish their goals.
"back channel talks with NK, China and the US should set up a way for denuclearization"
True, and this is how diplomacy is traditionally employed. It is done in secret, however, and such silence is useful for opponents of the US, foreign and domestic, to spread doubt and fear, and to obstruct the process.
"Rhetoric and totalitarian systems from the Stalinist NK government would, over time, be less effective for its populace and result in a natural normalization, and the Chinese could take a more active role in making NK a loose protectorate of sorts."
Communism kills in two ways - first, the imposition and maintenance requires killing the opposition. Second, the overthrow is usually bloody, a counter-revolution. The North Korean people will have to change things, and that seems unlikely for the moment. China would likely replace the outright NK communism with the laissez-faire Chinese communism is half a loaf, better but
No matter what, this problem cannot be ignored. NK doesn't want to be another Libya that denuclearizes and then has regime decapitation foisted on it, and it will eventually act if only because of some misinterpreted act of escalation. If the end goal is peace and prosperity for all sides, then give NK and SK that path and reduce the rhetoric.
Then exchange the readable receipt/ballot for a QR code based receipt. Losing the chain. Potentially failed. And if you give in the QR code, you have to keep the PIN with it, and I'm just smart enough to figure out that faking a PIN is no risk to me if the collector has dozens, and can't keep track of the owner.
But even this fails, since such an effort would be hard to disguise, even in Philadelphia.
True, pay for vote or pure extortion is a risk, but this is already a risk.And already being practiced. Perhaps the lesson here is that all electronic voting is intended to speed counting or reduce costs, and neither is sufficient to justify the risks.
Not too difficult. Whatever the UI is, let the ballot be generated, and then a paper receipt printed for me to compare with the on-screen tally. If I approve, I click 'Accept' and take my receipt to the counters, where it is scanned and returned to me.
Later I can go to the web site and validate that my vote was counted as expected, either with the scancode or GUID.
Counting is immediate, accuracy is within my hands, and I can even self-select to be part of a QA process that audits the blockchain and confirms my vote was accepted, counted, stored, and part of the final results - accurately.
And the miscreants that would claim later 'that's not my vote' can be dealt with, somehow, or admonished that clicking 'Accept' was a binding agreement. There is only so much we can do.
Let's not forget, the "The framers of the constitution" didn't "grant the people of the USA inalienable rights". They believed that certain rights were "inalienable", and that these were to be recognized and protected by the new form of government they intended to institute here. Grants can be revoked, and worse some rights granted can be modified and thereby neutered and lost. Inalienable rights, if challenged, are not invalidated, though denied, and can be claimed no matter the abuse. A right granted and then denied may be considered no longer valid by those who would oppress you.
Many of the constitutional rights we argue about today are inalienable to all people, and arguments against that are arguments against man's dignity and mutual respect.
Many countries don't use presumption of innocence, nor juries, and they do, well, fine by their standards, but not fine by ours.
The 'others' argument only devalues our freedoms and protections, such as they are, by establishing the false equivalence with others who believe profoundly differently than we do. But those beliefs are foundational, and we devalue those at our great peril.
"EVERY criminal in the jailhouse will tell you: "I didn't do it!"" because, in the jailhouse, EVERYBODY is ratting you out and EVERYBODY is watching and listening to you.
So you never ever admit to anything in the jailhouse because everything is known to the authorities. Oh, wait, even in the jailhouse the authorities cannot stop the flow of illegal drugs, of money, of weapons, and cannot even assure the innocent inmates of safety from one another...
And this is why encryption in the free society is both necessary and must be inviolate. 'Our betters', the prosecutors, jailers, and police, cannot be trusted, for they make mistakes. And they will not admit to them. Permitting them any sort of privileged access into your encrypted information is intolerable. Let them prove their case however they can, knowing they will fail and guilty will go free, rather than the innocent be unjustly accused and convicted due to circumstances. For you can be sure the authorities, 'our betters', will make it up if they need to to avoid being caught in lies. That has happened over and over. Arguing that encryption denies them critical evidence is just the other side of the coin of 'trust us', despite the manifold reasons not to.
For they cannot even manage their own institutions.
"I suppose if everyone else was jumping off a bridge you would too?"
Yeah, my mom used that on me a lot.
Climate change is a scam, and it's proven should you care to look at the evidence available. Just the temperature data manipulations should cause thinking people to stop and question the conclusions being forced on them by the elites. Claiming the detractors are not credible is plugging your ears and pretending nothing is off here. Claiming you can;t or haven't read the detractors' evidence is irresponsible. This is a big deal - the climate nazis are determined to change our world, and not for your best interests, and to do so while avoiding the worst impacts on themselves or merely kicking that can down the road to your children and grandchildren.
Global warming is a scam. The evidence is clear. Truth to power.
The latter written by someone who apparently has not done real world dispersed support for a living. Windshield time is real in the known relativistic universe. Denying it only leaves you with uses unable to work, and bosses unable to retain your services.
What should Intel be fixing? MINIX is licensed under the Berkeley license, and apparently they are in compliance. If there is a known security vulnerability, it was not part of the reporting, so far. Perhaps we need to trust Intel that they have secured this adequately, and I know it is common practice to declare all security to be 'vulnerable', and that is assumed to be a best practice, but to enlarge that attitude and declare all such features as unacceptable due to undisclosed or, more correctly, unknown security breaches is naive.
Intel and others have delivered systems with these 'power off' or out of band management systems for decades. The risks are well understood by those who need to deal with them. Crying the sky is falling dilutes the real arguments, for instance the necessity of these features in consumer grade products, deployment via OS vendors such as Microsoft of widespread out of band management without explicit knowledge by consumers, and lack of useful management tools for SMB users who are not entirely aware of the risks.
Tanenbaum's root complaint seems to be he got little or no credit. Fair enough.
And if you don't understand how attractive an out of band management is, you don't need to. That doesn't make it less useful, just makes you unaware, and be glad you are. All that nasty stuff needed to make large organizations function is worthy of scrutiny, but best left to professionals, despite your closely held distrust of authority.
Sprint seems to have gobs of 2.5GHz spectrum, plentiful 1900MHz spectrum, and 800MHz.
Of course, 2.5GHz is very attractive for LTE, but short range and an urban solution, for even the suburbs require a LOT of towers to serve up that. 1900 is a PCS band, and again relatively expensive to deploy, lots of towers in rural areas and sensitive to topology and vegetation. 800MHZ isn't as penetrating as some other options, is lackluster for a lot of reasons.
TMO has Block A 700MHz they are using for LTE, quite a bit of 1900/2100 AWS, 1900 PCS, and is very bullish on their nationwide Band 71 600MHz purchase, though phones will be slow in coming for this, as they are the exclusive user I believe, and have to move off the legacy broadcasters who have worn out their welcome...
Sprint has made their play in urban and higher density settings, TMO seems determined to build virtually 100% coverage somehow, be it a mix of 71 and others bands, or focusing on 71 and letting the others fill in where best suited. My money is on TMO, not just because I'm as customer, but I think they have a better plan, and are controlling costs - which paying $8Bn for Band 71 will do to you.
Slashdot Mirror
"IMO the scariest scenario is NK allying with an adversary of the US and it's allies and giving them a small nuclear weapon to smuggle out"
Yeah, this isn't new or unique to the current confrontation. This is, in fact, the basis for our policy towards NK for decades. Extra points for you when you name the primary and most visible partner of the NK regimes involved.
"NK represents the first and what will likely be the largest failure of the UN and US policy. Continually ignoring the buildup of weapons and failing to find a solution to the artillery pointed at SK and Seoul, combined with support from two communist regime neighbors, has brought us to this place."
Amen. Decades of attempted appeasement and waiting for the NK regimes to come to their senses has led us to both the risk of further proliferation and danger to all peoples. The NPT should be more fully expanded to become nonnegotiable, binding on all nations, and specifically include enforcement and preventative measures. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric, the US is not likely to unilaterally use nuclear weapons, not is it, despite the fever dreams of the Left, likely even to use nuclear weapons as a first retaliatory response. We know the consequences of being the first, so far only, nation to actually use nuclear weapons. That is not lost on even the current Administration. Whatever else you may believe, such an act would be taken only after careful deliberation, and that itself makes the act much less acceptable. The US conventional forces are more than adequate to deal any aspiring nuclear state a crushing, fatally overwhelming blow in response, and it is doubtful any other nation would either oppose such a response nor even denounce it.
This is a failure of the UN, the nuclear capable nations, the NPT, and those nations that support and defend NK brinkmanship. Calling these nations to account is long overdue. Some have regularly, in their own language and in international forums, called for the destruction of the US. Aggression by these nations need not be tolerated, and their actions are being exposed now for us to consider as we move forward through this definitive era. Either we defend freedom or we perish, literally, for the Left doesn't use violence as a last resort, it uses it as the most effective tool to accomplish their goals.
"back channel talks with NK, China and the US should set up a way for denuclearization"
True, and this is how diplomacy is traditionally employed. It is done in secret, however, and such silence is useful for opponents of the US, foreign and domestic, to spread doubt and fear, and to obstruct the process.
"Rhetoric and totalitarian systems from the Stalinist NK government would, over time, be less effective for its populace and result in a natural normalization, and the Chinese could take a more active role in making NK a loose protectorate of sorts."
Communism kills in two ways - first, the imposition and maintenance requires killing the opposition. Second, the overthrow is usually bloody, a counter-revolution. The North Korean people will have to change things, and that seems unlikely for the moment. China would likely replace the outright NK communism with the laissez-faire Chinese communism is half a loaf, better but
No matter what, this problem cannot be ignored. NK doesn't want to be another Libya that denuclearizes and then has regime decapitation foisted on it, and it will eventually act if only because of some misinterpreted act of escalation. If the end goal is peace and prosperity for all sides, then give NK and SK that path and reduce the rhetoric.
Then exchange the readable receipt/ballot for a QR code based receipt. Losing the chain. Potentially failed. And if you give in the QR code, you have to keep the PIN with it, and I'm just smart enough to figure out that faking a PIN is no risk to me if the collector has dozens, and can't keep track of the owner.
But even this fails, since such an effort would be hard to disguise, even in Philadelphia.
True, pay for vote or pure extortion is a risk, but this is already a risk.And already being practiced. Perhaps the lesson here is that all electronic voting is intended to speed counting or reduce costs, and neither is sufficient to justify the risks.
Not too difficult. Whatever the UI is, let the ballot be generated, and then a paper receipt printed for me to compare with the on-screen tally. If I approve, I click 'Accept' and take my receipt to the counters, where it is scanned and returned to me.
Later I can go to the web site and validate that my vote was counted as expected, either with the scancode or GUID.
Counting is immediate, accuracy is within my hands, and I can even self-select to be part of a QA process that audits the blockchain and confirms my vote was accepted, counted, stored, and part of the final results - accurately.
And the miscreants that would claim later 'that's not my vote' can be dealt with, somehow, or admonished that clicking 'Accept' was a binding agreement. There is only so much we can do.
Let's not forget, the "The framers of the constitution" didn't "grant the people of the USA inalienable rights". They believed that certain rights were "inalienable", and that these were to be recognized and protected by the new form of government they intended to institute here. Grants can be revoked, and worse some rights granted can be modified and thereby neutered and lost. Inalienable rights, if challenged, are not invalidated, though denied, and can be claimed no matter the abuse. A right granted and then denied may be considered no longer valid by those who would oppress you.
Many of the constitutional rights we argue about today are inalienable to all people, and arguments against that are arguments against man's dignity and mutual respect.
Not a persuasive argument.
Many countries don't use presumption of innocence, nor juries, and they do, well, fine by their standards, but not fine by ours.
The 'others' argument only devalues our freedoms and protections, such as they are, by establishing the false equivalence with others who believe profoundly differently than we do. But those beliefs are foundational, and we devalue those at our great peril.
"EVERY criminal in the jailhouse will tell you: "I didn't do it!"" because, in the jailhouse, EVERYBODY is ratting you out and EVERYBODY is watching and listening to you.
So you never ever admit to anything in the jailhouse because everything is known to the authorities. Oh, wait, even in the jailhouse the authorities cannot stop the flow of illegal drugs, of money, of weapons, and cannot even assure the innocent inmates of safety from one another...
And this is why encryption in the free society is both necessary and must be inviolate. 'Our betters', the prosecutors, jailers, and police, cannot be trusted, for they make mistakes. And they will not admit to them. Permitting them any sort of privileged access into your encrypted information is intolerable. Let them prove their case however they can, knowing they will fail and guilty will go free, rather than the innocent be unjustly accused and convicted due to circumstances. For you can be sure the authorities, 'our betters', will make it up if they need to to avoid being caught in lies. That has happened over and over. Arguing that encryption denies them critical evidence is just the other side of the coin of 'trust us', despite the manifold reasons not to.
For they cannot even manage their own institutions.
*whoosh*
You're feeding them again. Have you not learned to avoid that yet? Distraction is the tool of the common enemy.
"I suppose if everyone else was jumping off a bridge you would too?"
Yeah, my mom used that on me a lot.
Climate change is a scam, and it's proven should you care to look at the evidence available. Just the temperature data manipulations should cause thinking people to stop and question the conclusions being forced on them by the elites. Claiming the detractors are not credible is plugging your ears and pretending nothing is off here. Claiming you can;t or haven't read the detractors' evidence is irresponsible. This is a big deal - the climate nazis are determined to change our world, and not for your best interests, and to do so while avoiding the worst impacts on themselves or merely kicking that can down the road to your children and grandchildren.
Global warming is a scam. The evidence is clear. Truth to power.
RTFA. Then consider most 'embedded OSs' are security nightmares.
Not much of an answer...
Set the HAP bit to 1.
You're welcome.
"I do not have the time..."
"Lazy people"
The latter written by someone who apparently has not done real world dispersed support for a living. Windshield time is real in the known relativistic universe. Denying it only leaves you with uses unable to work, and bosses unable to retain your services.
What should Intel be fixing? MINIX is licensed under the Berkeley license, and apparently they are in compliance. If there is a known security vulnerability, it was not part of the reporting, so far. Perhaps we need to trust Intel that they have secured this adequately, and I know it is common practice to declare all security to be 'vulnerable', and that is assumed to be a best practice, but to enlarge that attitude and declare all such features as unacceptable due to undisclosed or, more correctly, unknown security breaches is naive.
Intel and others have delivered systems with these 'power off' or out of band management systems for decades. The risks are well understood by those who need to deal with them. Crying the sky is falling dilutes the real arguments, for instance the necessity of these features in consumer grade products, deployment via OS vendors such as Microsoft of widespread out of band management without explicit knowledge by consumers, and lack of useful management tools for SMB users who are not entirely aware of the risks.
Tanenbaum's root complaint seems to be he got little or no credit. Fair enough.
And if you don't understand how attractive an out of band management is, you don't need to. That doesn't make it less useful, just makes you unaware, and be glad you are. All that nasty stuff needed to make large organizations function is worthy of scrutiny, but best left to professionals, despite your closely held distrust of authority.
Sprint seems to have gobs of 2.5GHz spectrum, plentiful 1900MHz spectrum, and 800MHz.
Of course, 2.5GHz is very attractive for LTE, but short range and an urban solution, for even the suburbs require a LOT of towers to serve up that. 1900 is a PCS band, and again relatively expensive to deploy, lots of towers in rural areas and sensitive to topology and vegetation. 800MHZ isn't as penetrating as some other options, is lackluster for a lot of reasons.
TMO has Block A 700MHz they are using for LTE, quite a bit of 1900/2100 AWS, 1900 PCS, and is very bullish on their nationwide Band 71 600MHz purchase, though phones will be slow in coming for this, as they are the exclusive user I believe, and have to move off the legacy broadcasters who have worn out their welcome...
Sprint has made their play in urban and higher density settings, TMO seems determined to build virtually 100% coverage somehow, be it a mix of 71 and others bands, or focusing on 71 and letting the others fill in where best suited. My money is on TMO, not just because I'm as customer, but I think they have a better plan, and are controlling costs - which paying $8Bn for Band 71 will do to you.
Wow. I get you proving my point, and a vulgar insult to boot.
It's a two-fer.
This.
THIS is the single most genuine and compelling post I've read on /. in years. Damn, you are good. Love that Japanese culture. Mostly.
TMO owns plenty of towers in the US. perhaps you should reconsider your sources?
Band 71 is 600MHz. And there is a difference...
The simple way to decrease churn is stop soliciting new customers,. Those who stay are satisfied, and don't churn.
But that is not a reliable measure of success.
Clearly, you do not 'get it'. Getting off the porch is dangerous. You may get bit. Or left behind.
You're feeding them, They will only multiply.
*whoosh*