Well, I am writing this on an Intel Core i-7 940, and I *do* need it. I paid quite a lot for this PC (although a while ago) and I don't see why I should not expect it to work reliably.
In general, moreover, it seems axiomatic that anyone who owns and is using one of those processors marked "Stopped" does need a fix.
It seems that Intel is ready to admit that it was (and may be still) unable to design and build processors that were dependably secure in normal operation.
Also that it is willing to let its customers down without compensation.
Name one function that you use that has become unreliable and for which you deserve compensation.
He would rather bask in the ambiguity of the situation than prove his identity and make himself the target of thieves and governments.
Why would thieves and governments wait for proof rather than simply taking him at his own word?
"I'd totally kidnap him, but I can't be positive that he actually holds millions upon millions worth of bitcoin, and because of that the risk is too much..."
I think you could easily argue, in the case of a fake stop sign, that the computer was not so protected.
I think that you'd lose that argument in a heartbeat.
Per 1830(e)(2)(B), a "protected computer" means one "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States."
Self-driving cars engage in interstate travel just like human-driven cars.
The answer is probably going to depend upon one word:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030): (a) Whoever-- (5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
Can you convince judges that "cause the transmission" should only mean active electronic transmission, or can prosecutors convince judges that "cause the transmission" should have the same epidemiological sense as causing the transmission of a virus, worm, etc, regardless of means.
We were discussing EU workers in the UK. Your decision to cut out the quote that I was responding to, and thus the context of the statement, is your own self-generated problem.
Otherwise, in the same vein of thought, why should EU visa holders continue to be able to work in the UK? UK is allowing for that, any two reasonable organizations would reach some accommodation.
Because those visa holders will already be in the UK. Those EU citizens not in the UK will be unable to enter the UK without a UK visa.
Those UK businesses not already having undertakings in the EU will not be able to maintain.eu domain names.
Not all of the people in the UK voted to leave. But way to make them realize they should have, by childishly having an un-elected shadow government steal a bunch of domains.
Yeah, they should have voted to leave, and then the UK would... still... be leaving... just like... it is now.
The GPLv2 does not impose any obligation to provide current, much less future support, to distributed code.
The GRSecurity "separate writing" only terminates an obligation to provide future support (updates and source code to update) if the source code is disclosed.
Ego, it is not an "additional restrictive term" under the GPL.
Peep is probably not the word they intend, they mean monitor/spy/track/control.
It's not the peeping that I'm worried about. The typical location being watched is a public space and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy for what I do in that space.
It's the coordination across an entire network of cameras, with "new and improved" facial recognition technologies to boot, in order to surveil individuals in vast numbers across entire geographies, persistently, and with retention of the data even in the absence of an immediate or prior incident, that crosses over from peeping at public activity to governmental stalking, spying, and the like.
If the government can see me doing anything I do publicly just like Joe Q. Public, fine. If the government is following me throughout my day like Joe Q. Stalker, there's at least the same problem as actually being followed throughout the day by Joe Q. Stalker.
So you are stuck in a hotel room in China for 9 days, and write 10 emails a day on your phone? Why not do this on YOUR LAPTOP while enjoying EXACTLY THE SAME SECURITY as doing it on your phone?
Because I already have a smartphone and don't need my laptop to be even more expensive so as to duplicate the smartphone's functions?
Because space and cooling in a laptop is only slightly less constrained than that in a cell phone?
32GB of memory? Holy cow, that's four times the RAM in my gaming PC!
Oh, you meant 32GB of storage.
What happened to Slashdot? I thought this was a website for nerds.
Yeah, nerds who remember that memory is not limited to dynamic random access memory, but includes storage technologies like bubble memory. I mean, it's cute that you've recognized the distinction between immediate use memory and secondary storage, but us oldsters remember that "memory" used to be really weird and the flash storage of today is far better than the memory of old.
God help you if iOS is ever changed to support optane-like technologies. Your head may explode.
The ONLY reason Facebook is being trashed is because the Left thinks FB/Zucky helped Trump knowingly or unknowingly. That's it. That's the only reason. The people screaming for investigations had no problem with Democrats using FB data for election demographics purposes, nor did they have any real issues with FB's invasiveness regarding privacy prior other than as a minor side-issue they had to make the right noises about.
Yes -- there's no difference between openly using Facebook's own advertising tools to microtarget voters and exfiltrating the "social graphs" of 50 million people to a third party (but just one, we promise) by getting 300 thousand people to take a "personality test" run by an academic because nonacademic entities were prohibited from downloading raw graph information from Facebook.
It's totally a double standard, and the differences in what happened are not important at all.
Ah, I somewhat see what you mean. Only Location Services has icons that indicate whether the permission was used recently and in the past 24 hours.
On the other hand, I don't manage the other permissions closely because the apps have to ask for them individually and thus the apps really only ask for the permissions that you would expect them to.
First of all, how long have you used Windows? The distinctions that you list are very recent and not always enforced as of today.
I tried 1.01 on my XT-compatible. I ran 3.0 on my 386SX. How long have you, youngster?
Second, why again are you talking about Linux and BSD when Windows is what we are supposed to be talking about.
Says you. You don't dictate what we are "supposed" to be talking about, and I certainly didn't agree to anything of the sort.
To refresh your memory: You said: "Well, you can't trust the "Programs and Features" listing to include all of the software operable on the machine, . . " to which I responded Microsoft should probably fix that. That sounds like a complaint to me.
As the one who wrote the words, I can safely inform you that you're wrong. You can tell because you dropped "so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used" and "the refusal to upgrade makes reasonable sense." Which is not a corner case specific to Windows.
And you missed my entire point: The OP complained he had a copy of an old program on his computer and that the Win 10 installer refused to update to Win 10 because he had the file. The OP clearly stated that he had not installed the program. Why should MS care about what files someone has on their drives if they are not actually installed?
Because your point is stupid, and relies upon some special definition of "installed" that you still can't explain, much less reconcile with how programs were "installed" before Windows tried to put a pretty face on automated uninstallation routines, and because "so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used".
I don't know where you work but we have a mix of new and legacy machines, and we do not allow people to install whatever software they want.
Bully for you. Remember your complaints about "real world scenarios" and MS failing to accout for them? How about home-operated Windows 10 machines run by non-professional users who simply expect their software to run after an update?
But according to this we cannot update the computers that are housing the software files to Win 10 because MS somehow feels that their judgement of what files we can have supersedes operational practices.
You're complaining that Microsoft's operational practices are blocking your operational practices while touting how you block your users operational practices with pride?
Plus you're serving software applications to legacy machines from Windows 10 client desktops and you think that your operational practices don't completely suck?
Stop wasting my time.
Again that is MS problem that should probably fix.
They did. You bitched. Oh, you mean centralize it all in a pretty little interface that is guaranteed to be accurate. Which no major operating system does. Yeah, they should get right on that.
And again you missed the point: MS should not be stopping an update process for the mere presence incompatible software installation files that have not been executed and override their users wishes.
Yes, they should. Their users' wishes are frequently idiotic. Like demanding that all the programs be listed in a pretty little interface that is guaranteed to be accurate yet has no effect upon the upgrade process because that would be overriding "their users wishes." Here's a hint: put the software on a server share like a competent IT professional.
Bahahaha. So this is your deflection again. You brought up how Microsoft cannot know which applications are installed yet when pointed out that they are in full control of this you try to deflect that criticism by talking about OS X and Linux. In Linux and OS X (derived from BSD), there are distinct separations of user applications and system applications.
No deflection. In Linus and BSD there are supposed to be distinct separations, when you follow customary practices, just as in Windows there are supposed to be distinct separations between system applications, user applications, and user data, when you follow customary practices, but in all three you can put an application in an extraodrinary place, i.e., not/usr/bin or its analog, and installed application list will not reflect it. Prove it false, or move on.
Again a red herring. The complaint that you made was on Microsoft.
I didn't make a complaint - you've lost track of the thread. I explained why Microsoft scanned local storage for incompatible executable applications and you lost your damn mind about how that was Microsoft's problem that it didn't know what was "installed" on the computer. As if the "Programs and Features" list was the end-all-be-all and the scanner finding anything else was somehow wrong. Microsoft fixed exactly the problem that you're complaining of -- they scanned the entire local storage for incompatible executable applications.
Bahahahaha,. See here you are trying to change the meaning of the word "installed" because you have been shown up not to know what you are talking about.
Coming from PETs, Commodore 64s, and IBM XTs running DOS, I'm afraid that you do not know what you are talking about. Applications were not "installed" under MS-DOS because there was no operating system-based directory of applications stored in the hard drive? As if...
Yes I have, and nothing prevents you from downloading an application file into an unusual folder and executing it
Er? You do know what installing an application entails in OS X right?
Non-denial #1. Nothing stops you from downloading a BSD-compliant application into/Users/UnknowingFool and executing it.
here is not enforcement of applications being put into certain folders, it is a convention, just as it is a convention upon installation to list programs within the "Programs and Features" registry entries in Windows so that they can be uninstalled.
So let me understand you correctly: To address your own point that Windows doesn't know for sure what Programs are installed in their own OS and that is something they could fix, you then try to bring up OS X and Linux as a red herring.
Yes, Linux and Mac OSX also do not know for sure what programs are installed in the OS. No, it's not a red herring -- it's an explanation for why scanning the filesystem would be necessary under all three OSes if you want to ensure that no incompatible program is stranded upon an OS upgrade. Otherwise you're taking the OS's installed application list at its word and that list is not guaranteed to be complete.
That does not change my point, which that the installer could be run from that location and the user might complain about the fact that it could not. The installer is an application as much as any other.
Then that makes your entire point irrelevant. The poster was complaining about something specific which was about Win 10 updater finding a software that it deemed "incompatible" even though it wasn't actually installed.
Any application held in local storage and executable as such is "installed." You're merely fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
OTOH, if you want some real creepy stalking behavior, I've already figured out who you are and could just dox you right here on the site. Would that make you feel better and justified in making your stalking statement?
Have you used OS X? Applications that are installed are in folder called Applications. As for Linux there is the distinct separation between system and user applications with applications being put into certain folders.
Yes I have, and nothing prevents you from downloading an application file into an unusual folder and executing it. There is not enforcement of applications being put into certain folders, it is a convention, just as it is a convention upon installation to list programs within the "Programs and Features" registry entries in Windows so that they can be uninstalled.
That's not what the poster said. He said specifically that the Win 10 install refused to work because another software's installer application was located in a folder. It had not been run. Win 10 objected to the mere presence of a file that didn't affect the operation of the machine.
That does not change my point, which that the installer could be run from that location and the user might complain about the fact that it could not. The installer is an application as much as any other.
You posted something and object to being responded is what you're saying.
What a coinky-dink, with no connected to your posts from yesterday at all...
When the company asked a representative sample of 1,000 American consumers whether they could name a famous woman leader in tech...
Ask 1,000 American consumers whether they could name a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and, unless they happened to be an employee of a Fortune 500 company and named their own CEO, 90% would probably draw a blank.
It's not useful information to your average consumer. The only reason that people can name Zuckerberg and a few others is that they're (in)famous and extraordinarily obscenely rich, as opposed to the typical corporate leader who is a milquetoast that seeks to avoid bad publicity like the plague and is merely obscenely rich.
These are consumers, not people employed in a field being asked to identify female leaders in their field. The information is irrelevant to them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not ambiguity then, is it?
Name one function that you use that has become unreliable and for which you deserve compensation.
Why would thieves and governments wait for proof rather than simply taking him at his own word?
"I'd totally kidnap him, but I can't be positive that he actually holds millions upon millions worth of bitcoin, and because of that the risk is too much..."
I think that you'd lose that argument in a heartbeat.
Per 1830(e)(2)(B), a "protected computer" means one "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States."
Self-driving cars engage in interstate travel just like human-driven cars.
The answer is probably going to depend upon one word:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030):
(a) Whoever--
(5)
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
Can you convince judges that "cause the transmission" should only mean active electronic transmission, or can prosecutors convince judges that "cause the transmission" should have the same epidemiological sense as causing the transmission of a virus, worm, etc, regardless of means.
I'll deny all I want, you reading-comprehension-impaired clod. We were discussing EU workers in the UK, and you can stuff it.
We were discussing EU workers in the UK. Your decision to cut out the quote that I was responding to, and thus the context of the statement, is your own self-generated problem.
Because those visa holders will already be in the UK. Those EU citizens not in the UK will be unable to enter the UK without a UK visa.
Those UK businesses not already having undertakings in the EU will not be able to maintain .eu domain names.
It's entirely symmetrical as it is.
Yeah, they should have voted to leave, and then the UK would... still... be leaving... just like... it is now.
So why should the EU care, again?
Not yours. Potentially because you can't distinguish between a contraction (who's) and a possessive (whose).
And I think that a monkey could have beaten that SLAPP suit, which did not rule on whether there actually was any GPLv2 violation or not.
9 months running says that it doesn't happen. Plus Bruce lacks standing to sue.
The GPLv2 does not impose any obligation to provide current, much less future support, to distributed code.
The GRSecurity "separate writing" only terminates an obligation to provide future support (updates and source code to update) if the source code is disclosed.
Ego, it is not an "additional restrictive term" under the GPL.
It is you who is simply wrong.
It's not the peeping that I'm worried about. The typical location being watched is a public space and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy for what I do in that space.
It's the coordination across an entire network of cameras, with "new and improved" facial recognition technologies to boot, in order to surveil individuals in vast numbers across entire geographies, persistently, and with retention of the data even in the absence of an immediate or prior incident, that crosses over from peeping at public activity to governmental stalking, spying, and the like.
If the government can see me doing anything I do publicly just like Joe Q. Public, fine. If the government is following me throughout my day like Joe Q. Stalker, there's at least the same problem as actually being followed throughout the day by Joe Q. Stalker.
Because I already have a smartphone and don't need my laptop to be even more expensive so as to duplicate the smartphone's functions?
Because space and cooling in a laptop is only slightly less constrained than that in a cell phone?
Just a few reasons...
Yeah, nerds who remember that memory is not limited to dynamic random access memory, but includes storage technologies like bubble memory. I mean, it's cute that you've recognized the distinction between immediate use memory and secondary storage, but us oldsters remember that "memory" used to be really weird and the flash storage of today is far better than the memory of old.
God help you if iOS is ever changed to support optane-like technologies. Your head may explode.
Yes -- there's no difference between openly using Facebook's own advertising tools to microtarget voters and exfiltrating the "social graphs" of 50 million people to a third party (but just one, we promise) by getting 300 thousand people to take a "personality test" run by an academic because nonacademic entities were prohibited from downloading raw graph information from Facebook.
It's totally a double standard, and the differences in what happened are not important at all.
In your feeble mind.
Ah, I somewhat see what you mean. Only Location Services has icons that indicate whether the permission was used recently and in the past 24 hours.
On the other hand, I don't manage the other permissions closely because the apps have to ask for them individually and thus the apps really only ask for the permissions that you would expect them to.
Then you wrote the wrong question, because his answer responded to the question asked.
Yes indeed, none of it could be true, because people are unfailingly rational, smart, and civil...
Which is completely disproven by the existence of 4chan. If it can be done, someone will do it, if just for lulz.
I tried 1.01 on my XT-compatible. I ran 3.0 on my 386SX. How long have you, youngster?
Says you. You don't dictate what we are "supposed" to be talking about, and I certainly didn't agree to anything of the sort.
As the one who wrote the words, I can safely inform you that you're wrong. You can tell because you dropped "so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used" and "the refusal to upgrade makes reasonable sense." Which is not a corner case specific to Windows.
Because your point is stupid, and relies upon some special definition of "installed" that you still can't explain, much less reconcile with how programs were "installed" before Windows tried to put a pretty face on automated uninstallation routines, and because "so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used".
Bully for you. Remember your complaints about "real world scenarios" and MS failing to accout for them? How about home-operated Windows 10 machines run by non-professional users who simply expect their software to run after an update?
You're complaining that Microsoft's operational practices are blocking your operational practices while touting how you block your users operational practices with pride?
Plus you're serving software applications to legacy machines from Windows 10 client desktops and you think that your operational practices don't completely suck?
Stop wasting my time.
They did. You bitched. Oh, you mean centralize it all in a pretty little interface that is guaranteed to be accurate. Which no major operating system does. Yeah, they should get right on that.
Yes, they should. Their users' wishes are frequently idiotic. Like demanding that all the programs be listed in a pretty little interface that is guaranteed to be accurate yet has no effect upon the upgrade process because that would be overriding "their users wishes." Here's a hint: put the software on a server share like a competent IT professional.
No deflection. In Linus and BSD there are supposed to be distinct separations, when you follow customary practices, just as in Windows there are supposed to be distinct separations between system applications, user applications, and user data, when you follow customary practices, but in all three you can put an application in an extraodrinary place, i.e., not /usr/bin or its analog, and installed application list will not reflect it. Prove it false, or move on.
I didn't make a complaint - you've lost track of the thread. I explained why Microsoft scanned local storage for incompatible executable applications and you lost your damn mind about how that was Microsoft's problem that it didn't know what was "installed" on the computer. As if the "Programs and Features" list was the end-all-be-all and the scanner finding anything else was somehow wrong. Microsoft fixed exactly the problem that you're complaining of -- they scanned the entire local storage for incompatible executable applications.
Coming from PETs, Commodore 64s, and IBM XTs running DOS, I'm afraid that you do not know what you are talking about. Applications were not "installed" under MS-DOS because there was no operating system-based directory of applications stored in the hard drive? As if...
Begone ignorant youngster...
*eye-roll*
Non-denial #1. Nothing stops you from downloading a BSD-compliant application into /Users/UnknowingFool and executing it.
Yes, Linux and Mac OSX also do not know for sure what programs are installed in the OS. No, it's not a red herring -- it's an explanation for why scanning the filesystem would be necessary under all three OSes if you want to ensure that no incompatible program is stranded upon an OS upgrade. Otherwise you're taking the OS's installed application list at its word and that list is not guaranteed to be complete.
Any application held in local storage and executable as such is "installed." You're merely fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
*Eye-roll*
Yes I have, and nothing prevents you from downloading an application file into an unusual folder and executing it. There is not enforcement of applications being put into certain folders, it is a convention, just as it is a convention upon installation to list programs within the "Programs and Features" registry entries in Windows so that they can be uninstalled.
That does not change my point, which that the installer could be run from that location and the user might complain about the fact that it could not. The installer is an application as much as any other.
What a coinky-dink, with no connected to your posts from yesterday at all...
Ask 1,000 American consumers whether they could name a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and, unless they happened to be an employee of a Fortune 500 company and named their own CEO, 90% would probably draw a blank.
It's not useful information to your average consumer. The only reason that people can name Zuckerberg and a few others is that they're (in)famous and extraordinarily obscenely rich, as opposed to the typical corporate leader who is a milquetoast that seeks to avoid bad publicity like the plague and is merely obscenely rich.
These are consumers, not people employed in a field being asked to identify female leaders in their field. The information is irrelevant to them.