If it were possible to preserve coherence in currency it would require a central database to check so the question becomes what is the point/benefit of this exercise?
If the semantic is when you check the bill its value must be refreshed then what is the practical difference between quantum approach and simply storing a new validation code on transisters sewn into the note during the checking process?
Someone hands you a counterfit $100 bill and you fail to verify it. Your screwed with either the quantum or classic validation code either way because you don't know if it is valid or if the previous owner made a copy of the classic code.
Someone hands you a $100 bill and you verify it. You now know either the classic or quantum version is valid. In the classic version the validation code changes. Even if the previous owner knew the code it does not matter anymore cause its no longer valid.
It would be interesting to find a scenario where the quantum approach makes any difference over the classical approach in a full real world implementation.
Either way we loose to police states wet dream of being able to track, record and mine to the hilt all transactions. Aggregation of power corrupts. It's human nature.
Why are there two certificates with the exact same label? It takes a special kind of idiot.
"Microsoft Enforced Licensing Intermediate PCA"
Why does a certificate valid from 2002 to 2010 matter in 2012.. oh yea thats right code signing certificates are based on the timestamp of the code and so when you compromise a signing cert 100 years from now and take that impossibly difficult extra step of forging a valid timestamp it will still be valid. All code signing certs should have an indefinate expiration because effectivly thats what they really are. Any other label is grossly misleading.
The security week and MS article talks about forging keys using what I assume are insecure for signature algorithms.. I assume they mean MD5..but hey look at this:
The signature algorithm for Microsoft Enforced Licensing Registration Authority CA (SHA1) is sha1 this is currently what EVERYONE is using. Was this cert also compromised in the same way? Why is it here?
People are fed up with maintaining their own computers and losing data. Therefore... People turn to cloud services for basically all their needs (have already or will soon). Therefore... Most people don't need the (high maintenance) PC anymore and turn to more mobile alternatives, like tables and phones.
Lets assume for the sake of argument everyone is too lazy or stupid to ever want to store anything or run anything on a local computer. I don't believe this bullshit for a second but lets just assume it is true.
What specifically then compells that person to choose metro over a different interface concept? Why should I be limited to only seeing one or two apps on my screen at one time just because I want to live the dumb terminal experience?
What compells me to use a tiny little device with a tiny screen with no keyboard over a PC form factor with large screen and a comfortable full sized keyboard?
Why does UI and form factor matter if your only goal is to punt responsibility for your stuff and save maintenance costs? What is inherit in either goal that necessitates the use of tablets and phones with a prescribed UI concept?
Afterall everyone has access to the same data and programs regardless of the form factor or interface concepts they select. The computers acting as a dumb terminal would be no more or less expensive to maintain than the same computer using a different UI concept or molded into a different form factor. It is much the same internal guts just with a different human interface.
The network used to be one important application. When it is the *only* application, a PC is an unnecessary burden that will go away
Why should access to network resources ever be the only method of application execution? I don't see any logical reason for this to be the case. This seems to be quite a wasteful and privacy reducing access pattern. You can achieve data redundancy and maintenance minimization by offering online backup services.
Last time I checked angry birds is downloaded and.... gulp played locally from local storage using local resources on computing devices of various form factors. In fact the increasing proliferation of apps stored and executed locally is putting negative pressure on the ultimate dumb terminal interface...the web browser. The trend is actually in the other direction AWAY from your silly vision.
For anti-trust avenue to stick there ususally has to be a monopoly component either already having one to begin with or some illegal collusion scheme to get one. MS has no market share of any kind at least none worth mentioning and there is no reason to believe this would change significantly even with patent proxies in play.
Looking at it the other way google has a huge slice of the market. Its no cost licensing is essentially dumping because it costs more than nothing to create a mobile operating system unless those costs are subsidised externally.
Either way using patents in a competitive war rather than improving the value your products provide is a lose lose lose for all but the lawyers.
I hope the world takes note of the huge loss of time, progress and productivity their illogical laws are inflicting on all of us. Fucking disgusting.
By google providing users with information about what is blocked they are enabled to more rapidly formulate queries which bypass censorship. The change is a win for all but oppressive control.
All of us who keep denying that the desktop is dying are ignoring that most people already only use their computer to access "the cloud", even if it isn't called that. Web mail, web galleries, media streaming, even the occasional image editing and office work is now done in a browser.
I vaugly remember using a computer when the killer app was not access to a computer network because such access simply did not exist or was too expensive. At that time not many people on earth owned a computer or would even choose to if given the opportunity. However for most of my life it was either an IP stack or terminal emulator connected to an insanly slow modem.
Yes the killer app was, is and always shall be access to the network stupid. This has not changed as you seem to be asserting it has. Lots of people have and will continue to have computers ONLY to check their spam laden email. Without access to a network they simply would not own a computer.
These ideas are orthogonal to form factor and UI concepts. You can't say because people like using the network or "cloud" or whatever ambiguous nonsense word makes you happy that it automatically means a specific form factor or UI concept has died. This makes no more sense than saying it will rain tomorrow because the sky is blue.
Redhat forking over cash is yet another path stone along the way.
Whenever a trust anchor grows so large its value approaches priceless or becomes ubiquitous to the world then you might as well just toss it overboard. Do yourself a favor and just assume it is no longer worth trusting cause it aint.
Someone blesses an exploitable kernel loader just once and all the effort wasted on security gets flushed down the toilet. Clever key management is not going to be able to save you.
What they should have done is what no committee is capable of doing -- provide a good enough but not perfect solution requiring a leap of faith during initial install or some kind of configuration (RS6000 configuration key) button the user must press when installing a new operating system to establish an initial trust relationship.
In a way I'm glad Microsoft is choosing UEFI to protect boot phase of their propritary (ARM) hardware as platform documentation is avaliable and common boot environment will make it easier to both expliot and reap the benefits post expliot.
There are better than half a million cancer deaths in the US alone every year. Your ~131 extra annual cancer deaths is a 0.03% increase, at most. In other words, even if your estimates of premature cancer deaths is correct, the change as a result of the TSA scans will be lost in the noise....
Yes you are 100% correct.
The TSA kills ~131 people per year on x-ray backscatter devices not able to detect internal explosives or petn laden underwear but hey no biggie cause CrimsonAvenger says these deaths will be lost in the noise of people who would have died of cancer anyway.
One thing I'm having trouble understanding is why it is necessary to stop with cancer? I mean since 100% of everyone living dies why not just let some three letter agency kill a few thousand random people a year just for kicks...still an insigifnicant rounding error of total people who would have died anyway. Am I being unfair?
In which case, it must really suck that you get a small amount of radiation exposure from your own body, eh?
Personally I don't care about my risks because I have better things to do. You'll ruin your life and health worrying about all of this noise that could happen... it is not worth doing.
As a policy matter it is important to decision makers and the general public who care about more than just themselves. Unless I bungled a decimal or unit which I do from time to time and you chart the backscatter figures to LNT line it is one early cancer death per 5 million scans. Assume TSA processes ~1.8m peeps daily.
There are ~365 days in a year and ~3650 days in a decade. In 10 years assuming everyone goes thru the scanners this is ~1314 cancer deaths.
No I say that "nonsense" because Xray machines do malfunction from time-to-time, and have been known to irradiate patients with deadly levels. That is why regulations have been passed to inspect Xray machines every few months, to insure they are still working properly & outputting safe levels rather than deadly levels. (Meanwhile the TSA machines are never inspected. They could be emitting cancer-causing levels and no one would know.)
According to the linear hypothesis there is no level other than zero which does not cause cancer. In the aggregate even though the scanners may pose a trivially small individual risk the chance of someone somewhere winning the TSA cancer lottery is significant.
Replace the scanners with a guillotine that with some random probability of one in hundreds of thousands to tens of millions it chops off the head of someone going thru a TSA line. This is essentially what the scanners are doing except victims will never be known and their demise will be much less humane than a guillotine.
In my opinion the real problem is in the way these topics are handled and argued by all concerned.
The science of prediction and the politics of mitigation always appear to be helplessly intertwingled. As a result people tend to respond in a political manner to both scientific and political components.
My recommendation is for scientists and their publications to describe only the changes that could occur. They should never try to suggest a course of action or attempt to describe the consquences of those changes.
Someone else should take these raw inputs and describe consequences these changes could mean to everyone.
Yet someone else (politicians) should take the consequences and figure out what if anything should be done.
Yet in real life we have infamous groups such as the IPCC playing judge jury and executioner complete with sky is/is not falling language.
The scientist who tells everyone to give up their SUVs or die from global warming is subject to endless political attack.
The scientist who just runs models and keeps their traps shut about political issues are only subject to subsantative attacks against the quality of their work.
In practice the distinction may be difficult or simply not worth much...yet nobody even seems to be trying and I think this is a problem.
Except that they can still ask you to turn off your camera, and they can still arrest you if you don't.
Is there any behavior where this argument could not be invoked by an officier as justification for arrest?
They just have to come up with some other charge(contempt of cop), or release you without charge after holding you long enough to miss the shot. And if you got it, oops, the sd card went missing somehow. Too bad about that. That's if your lucky and the officer didn't mistake your camera for a gun.
Freedom isn't free it is something that must be constantly asserted. It is not supposed to be easy.
It is really sad we have all this technology only to see it wasted on nonsensical bullshit designed to extract every penny from every imaginable sale channel rather than provide value to the paying customer.
The EE guys are taking names and kicking ass while software finds new ways to waste every new transistor and radio tower thay are given.
This is like a bunch of retards arguing about who is smarter. At the end of that exercise everyone in attendance is still retarded.
the fact of the matter is, even an OpenBSD box running SSH, SMTP, and HTTP services isn't going to get hacked
Famous last words...so famous most people know better than to ever consider uttering them.
Let's talk about local root exploits, which are found regularly on Linux and Windows
What is your conclusion based on the number of found local root expliots? I suggest gathering statistics on the amount of effort going into discovering expliots on each platform before you take the leap of asserting a niche OS nobody uses is more secure on the grounds nobody bothers to find expliots.
I seem to recall the clueless apple fanboys trying the security by obscurity thing for years.. currently it is not working out so well for them.
Contrast this with Linux or Windows, where they react after the fact; and after countless people have been p0wned.
This is 2012 not 1995. Today every OS vendor cares about security and everyone takes proactive measures to mitigate threats.
If anyone thinks their favorite general purpose operating system is secure they are dellusioned fools. They all fail every last one of them. No exceptions. The only thing you can do is lock your shitty bug laden OS down to minimize your exposure.
The next time you think Linux is secure browse filter your favorite distributions software update database by security fixes and go running home in tears to your mommy.
Key point from TFA "was easy for people with control over the machines to deduce and copy"
If anything is running on a computer it is possible to probe it and figure out what it is doing and duplicate it if you have complete control over it. It does not much matter what it is how fancy an algorithm is being used or how it is configured.
If you want something to stay secret then it needs to self destruct when someone tries to fuck with it or anything it depends on to work.
Reminds me of the outraged cries of those 1337 few over the years who independantly discovered operating system x must be defective since you can bypass password authentication or access controls by mounting an unencrypted hard disk in a different computer. No shit.
This jyberish about which is better is irrelevent. Forbes article simply substitutes one misunderstanding for another.
AC comes out of spinning generators that produce electricity. Large scale production could not be rectified into DC back then. Even today it still is not all that practical but continues to improve. It is not about "transmission". DC has advantage over AC in transmission due to skin effect and lack of need for phase synchronization.
The real argument was NOT really about AC vs DC.. It was about local vs large scale means of production. A generator on every corner vs much fewer large scale generators. Fewer larger generators required higher voltages or unreasonable amounts of copper and could not be rectified. Smaller more numerous generators could make due with lower voltages that could be rectified.
While not surprising, it is quite annoying that every post on the internet about changing something in Windows is met with hatred and fear. Get over it,
When a statement like this is made there has to be some avenue of falsifying it should it be applied to support total nonsense. Otherwise the statement itself is essentially specious worthless drivel with no meaning in and of itself.
For example if Microsoft removed all support for sound and replaced it with a snazzy graphical fft/waveform display atop the screen..what prevents me from applying your argument to assert you are just being change adverse when you point out the new system is worthless to you?
I guess you could always use sign language during a skype call or a series of grunting noises that could be visually discerned from the FFT waterfall in lieu of english.
Rather than rally against people for being change adverse in my opinion the only acceptable course of discourse on this topic is to argue the MERITS of each and every change.
I'm having trouble parsing the difference between subsidy and dumping when the effective outcomes are the same.
Rather than taxing what are really awesome low cost chinese solar panels...I would much rather see US subsidies to enable effective competition with chinese market to further push down costs and improve quality and effeciency. The US may have higher labor costs but this is only temporary Chinese costs are rising and cheap labor is already fleeing China. We offset this the way we always do... by working smarter rather than harder..with more automation and technology vs sweat shops.
There are practical limits and maybe the US is justified in its actions...yet I just can't shake the feeling at the core the real issue is we're a bunch of pathetic loosers crying foul.
When foreign farmers are put at a disadvantage by US AG subsidies where is the US concern over the negative consequences of US government interference in the "free market".
Just WTF do they think they are going to when all Internet standards bodies unanimously refuse to be overseen? Shut down their mailing lists and brand all members terrorists?
At first I thought Microsoft was drinking soo much of their own metro tablet coolaid it had melted their collective brains and caused them to go insane.
Then I quickly realized a deeper truth. In their rush to emulate Apple MS no longer cares about me or my needs. A list of 30 useless features and a big fuck you over start menu makes my point for me. It is not about "new" or changes.. It is about flushing their existing market in an attempt to make more money in a different one currently saturated by Apple.
Oh and.. you gotta love being able to run two applications at once on the same display... Like rediscovering dos era deskview all over again...WOW.
While I am not able to remember when I last saw a floppy disk icon I appreciate and identify with your insatiable thirst for cherry picking and hyperbole.
Radio buttons... Thanks for the education. I never gave it a second thought or made that connection because like yourself I'm a fucking idiot. Speaking of connections how does this label count as an icon that "does not make sense" anymore? What icon? And since when the hell do non-programmers (using term very loosly) even know radio buttons are called radio buttons anyway?
'No, books didn't "keep our place when we turned them off."' Personally I use old movie tickets as bookmarks while debugging my punch cards.
"I use folders because I use the 43 Folders organizational system"
You admit even you use folders and yet this still makes your list of 14 icons that don't make sense anymore. Why is your nonsense even on slashdot? How much moola did it take to get./ to sell its soul? Why am I wasting my time replying to this? I suspect its cause we're both fucking idiots.
"The world's most advanced phones include an icon that looks like a phone handset that you haven't touched in 20 years, unless you've used a pay phone recently."
What you really meant to say was "I have not had a job in 20 years"
"Soon the envelope itself will go away and the next generation will wonder what this rectangle means and what it has to do with email. "
Hate to break it to ya snail mail aint not going nowhere anytime soon. I'm drawn like a bug to headlights to origional point of this exercise.. "14 other old people icons that don't make sense anymore". I understand you may think the flux capacitor you ordered off ebay was sold as a "prop" only to cover for its amazing properties just as the xbox360 "box only" I ordered contained an actual xbox360.
"If you don't know who Johnny Carson is, how could you know that this is a old-style microphone?"
I know right cause if you like google "usb microphone" only modern futurastic usb era microphones appear and they look NOTHING like that icon.
"Want to indicate Settings or Setup to a twenty something? Show them a tool they've never used in their lives."
Now your just being rude and condescending. What I might have said previously in humor I mean sincerely now "FUCK YOU".
"No one under 30 has seen a Polaroid in years but we keep using them for icons. Instagram sold for $1B with an icon whose subtlety was lost on its target audience"
Ok so your under 30... now lets see if we can narrow the field with our "binoculars"... 12? 11?.. close?
That instagram icon does not show any slots with pictures coming out of it. In fact it does not even remotly resemble a real polariod camera at all. The only resembelence I see is a misplaced iconic rainbow stripe. It actually resembles a nondescript film camera. Instagram uses such icons because nostalgia is the whole fucking point of instagram.
The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.
We can achieve the same goal of reducing carbon output by instead investing that money into first-world research and development of alternative fuels. Full implementation then eliminates carbon emissions altogether, a goal which can't be achieved by market-based carbon neutrality alone.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If there is not a MARKET BASED need for alternate fuels everyone will use coal and tar shit until the end of time. Work necessary to change will never be reached.
You can (try to) invest all the money you want into research and subsidies... in the real world huge economies of scale are required to achive market viability with alternate energy.
Artifically changing market behavior by imposing carbon levies makes sense to me in the abstract. Implementation is everything. Piss poor corruption (Energy lobbies) based implementation may well end up being a sham but I'm still rather fond of the abstract concept.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were possible to preserve coherence in currency it would require a central database to check so the question becomes what is the point/benefit of this exercise?
If the semantic is when you check the bill its value must be refreshed then what is the practical difference between quantum approach and simply storing a new validation code on transisters sewn into the note during the checking process?
Someone hands you a counterfit $100 bill and you fail to verify it. Your screwed with either the quantum or classic validation code either way because you don't know if it is valid or if the previous owner made a copy of the classic code.
Someone hands you a $100 bill and you verify it. You now know either the classic or quantum version is valid. In the classic version the validation code changes. Even if the previous owner knew the code it does not matter anymore cause its no longer valid.
It would be interesting to find a scenario where the quantum approach makes any difference over the classical approach in a full real world implementation.
Either way we loose to police states wet dream of being able to track, record and mine to the hilt all transactions. Aggregation of power corrupts. It's human nature.
Why are there two certificates with the exact same label? It takes a special kind of idiot.
"Microsoft Enforced Licensing Intermediate PCA"
Why does a certificate valid from 2002 to 2010 matter in 2012.. oh yea thats right code signing certificates are based on the timestamp of the code and so when you compromise a signing cert 100 years from now and take that impossibly difficult extra step of forging a valid timestamp it will still be valid. All code signing certs should have an indefinate expiration because effectivly thats what they really are. Any other label is grossly misleading.
The security week and MS article talks about forging keys using what I assume are insecure for signature algorithms.. I assume they mean MD5..but hey look at this:
The signature algorithm for Microsoft Enforced Licensing Registration Authority CA (SHA1) is sha1 this is currently what EVERYONE is using. Was this cert also compromised in the same way? Why is it here?
People are fed up with maintaining their own computers and losing data. Therefore...
People turn to cloud services for basically all their needs (have already or will soon). Therefore...
Most people don't need the (high maintenance) PC anymore and turn to more mobile alternatives, like tables and phones.
Lets assume for the sake of argument everyone is too lazy or stupid to ever want to store anything or run anything on a local computer. I don't believe this bullshit for a second but lets just assume it is true.
What specifically then compells that person to choose metro over a different interface concept? Why should I be limited to only seeing one or two apps on my screen at one time just because I want to live the dumb terminal experience?
What compells me to use a tiny little device with a tiny screen with no keyboard over a PC form factor with large screen and a comfortable full sized keyboard?
Why does UI and form factor matter if your only goal is to punt responsibility for your stuff and save maintenance costs? What is inherit in either goal that necessitates the use of tablets and phones with a prescribed UI concept?
Afterall everyone has access to the same data and programs regardless of the form factor or interface concepts they select. The computers acting as a dumb terminal would be no more or less expensive to maintain than the same computer using a different UI concept or molded into a different form factor. It is much the same internal guts just with a different human interface.
The network used to be one important application. When it is the *only* application, a PC is an unnecessary burden that will go away
Why should access to network resources ever be the only method of application execution? I don't see any logical reason for this to be the case. This seems to be quite a wasteful and privacy reducing access pattern. You can achieve data redundancy and maintenance minimization by offering online backup services.
Last time I checked angry birds is downloaded and .... gulp played locally from local storage using local resources on computing devices of various form factors. In fact the increasing proliferation of apps stored and executed locally is putting negative pressure on the ultimate dumb terminal interface...the web browser. The trend is actually in the other direction AWAY from your silly vision.
For anti-trust avenue to stick there ususally has to be a monopoly component either already having one to begin with or some illegal collusion scheme to get one. MS has no market share of any kind at least none worth mentioning and there is no reason to believe this would change significantly even with patent proxies in play.
Looking at it the other way google has a huge slice of the market. Its no cost licensing is essentially dumping because it costs more than nothing to create a mobile operating system unless those costs are subsidised externally.
Either way using patents in a competitive war rather than improving the value your products provide is a lose lose lose for all but the lawyers.
I hope the world takes note of the huge loss of time, progress and productivity their illogical laws are inflicting on all of us. Fucking disgusting.
By google providing users with information about what is blocked they are enabled to more rapidly formulate queries which bypass censorship. The change is a win for all but oppressive control.
All of us who keep denying that the desktop is dying are ignoring that most people already only use their computer to access "the cloud", even if it isn't called that. Web mail, web galleries, media streaming, even the occasional image editing and office work is now done in a browser.
I vaugly remember using a computer when the killer app was not access to a computer network because such access simply did not exist or was too expensive. At that time not many people on earth owned a computer or would even choose to if given the opportunity. However for most of my life it was either an IP stack or terminal emulator connected to an insanly slow modem.
Yes the killer app was, is and always shall be access to the network stupid. This has not changed as you seem to be asserting it has. Lots of people have and will continue to have computers ONLY to check their spam laden email. Without access to a network they simply would not own a computer.
These ideas are orthogonal to form factor and UI concepts. You can't say because people like using the network or "cloud" or whatever ambiguous nonsense word makes you happy that it automatically means a specific form factor or UI concept has died. This makes no more sense than saying it will rain tomorrow because the sky is blue.
Redhat forking over cash is yet another path stone along the way.
Whenever a trust anchor grows so large its value approaches priceless or becomes ubiquitous to the world then you might as well just toss it overboard. Do yourself a favor and just assume it is no longer worth trusting cause it aint.
Someone blesses an exploitable kernel loader just once and all the effort wasted on security gets flushed down the toilet. Clever key management is not going to be able to save you.
What they should have done is what no committee is capable of doing -- provide a good enough but not perfect solution requiring a leap of faith during initial install or some kind of configuration (RS6000 configuration key) button the user must press when installing a new operating system to establish an initial trust relationship.
In a way I'm glad Microsoft is choosing UEFI to protect boot phase of their propritary (ARM) hardware as platform documentation is avaliable and common boot environment will make it easier to both expliot and reap the benefits post expliot.
There are better than half a million cancer deaths in the US alone every year. Your ~131 extra annual cancer deaths is a 0.03% increase, at most.
In other words, even if your estimates of premature cancer deaths is correct, the change as a result of the TSA scans will be lost in the noise....
Yes you are 100% correct.
The TSA kills ~131 people per year on x-ray backscatter devices not able to detect internal explosives or petn laden underwear but hey no biggie cause CrimsonAvenger says these deaths will be lost in the noise of people who would have died of cancer anyway.
One thing I'm having trouble understanding is why it is necessary to stop with cancer? I mean since 100% of everyone living dies why not just let some three letter agency kill a few thousand random people a year just for kicks...still an insigifnicant rounding error of total people who would have died anyway. Am I being unfair?
In which case, it must really suck that you get a small amount of radiation exposure from your own body, eh?
Personally I don't care about my risks because I have better things to do. You'll ruin your life and health worrying about all of this noise that could happen... it is not worth doing.
As a policy matter it is important to decision makers and the general public who care about more than just themselves. Unless I bungled a decimal or unit which I do from time to time and you chart the backscatter figures to LNT line it is one early cancer death per 5 million scans. Assume TSA processes ~1.8m peeps daily.
There are ~365 days in a year and ~3650 days in a decade. In 10 years assuming everyone goes thru the scanners this is ~1314 cancer deaths.
No I say that "nonsense" because Xray machines do malfunction from time-to-time, and have been known to irradiate patients with deadly levels. That is why regulations have been passed to inspect Xray machines every few months, to insure they are still working properly & outputting safe levels rather than deadly levels. (Meanwhile the TSA machines are never inspected. They could be emitting cancer-causing levels and no one would know.)
According to the linear hypothesis there is no level other than zero which does not cause cancer. In the aggregate even though the scanners may pose a trivially small individual risk the chance of someone somewhere winning the TSA cancer lottery is significant.
Replace the scanners with a guillotine that with some random probability of one in hundreds of thousands to tens of millions it chops off the head of someone going thru a TSA line. This is essentially what the scanners are doing except victims will never be known and their demise will be much less humane than a guillotine.
The only way to win the evolution debate game is not to play.
In my opinion the real problem is in the way these topics are handled and argued by all concerned.
The science of prediction and the politics of mitigation always appear to be helplessly intertwingled. As a result people tend to respond in a political manner to both scientific and political components.
My recommendation is for scientists and their publications to describe only the changes that could occur. They should never try to suggest a course of action or attempt to describe the consquences of those changes.
Someone else should take these raw inputs and describe consequences these changes could mean to everyone.
Yet someone else (politicians) should take the consequences and figure out what if anything should be done.
Yet in real life we have infamous groups such as the IPCC playing judge jury and executioner complete with sky is/is not falling language.
The scientist who tells everyone to give up their SUVs or die from global warming is subject to endless political attack.
The scientist who just runs models and keeps their traps shut about political issues are only subject to subsantative attacks against the quality of their work.
In practice the distinction may be difficult or simply not worth much...yet nobody even seems to be trying and I think this is a problem.
Except that they can still ask you to turn off your camera, and they can still arrest you if you don't.
Is there any behavior where this argument could not be invoked by an officier as justification for arrest?
They just have to come up with some other charge(contempt of cop), or release you without charge after holding you long enough to miss the shot. And if you got it, oops, the sd card went missing somehow. Too bad about that. That's if your lucky and the officer didn't mistake your camera for a gun.
Freedom isn't free it is something that must be constantly asserted. It is not supposed to be easy.
It is really sad we have all this technology only to see it wasted on nonsensical bullshit designed to extract every penny from every imaginable sale channel rather than provide value to the paying customer.
The EE guys are taking names and kicking ass while software finds new ways to waste every new transistor and radio tower thay are given.
I am ashamed of myself and my industry.
One word: OpenBSD. It is more secure.
This is like a bunch of retards arguing about who is smarter. At the end of that exercise everyone in attendance is still retarded.
the fact of the matter is, even an OpenBSD box running SSH, SMTP, and HTTP services isn't going to get hacked
Famous last words...so famous most people know better than to ever consider uttering them.
Let's talk about local root exploits, which are found regularly on Linux and Windows
What is your conclusion based on the number of found local root expliots? I suggest gathering statistics on the amount of effort going into discovering expliots on each platform before you take the leap of asserting a niche OS nobody uses is more secure on the grounds nobody bothers to find expliots.
I seem to recall the clueless apple fanboys trying the security by obscurity thing for years.. currently it is not working out so well for them.
Contrast this with Linux or Windows, where they react after the fact; and after countless people have been p0wned.
This is 2012 not 1995. Today every OS vendor cares about security and everyone takes proactive measures to mitigate threats.
If anyone thinks their favorite general purpose operating system is secure they are dellusioned fools. They all fail every last one of them. No exceptions. The only thing you can do is lock your shitty bug laden OS down to minimize your exposure.
The next time you think Linux is secure browse filter your favorite distributions software update database by security fixes and go running home in tears to your mommy.
If you accuse someone of wrongdoing and then take action against them you can and will be sued.
Key point from TFA "was easy for people with control over the machines to deduce and copy"
If anything is running on a computer it is possible to probe it and figure out what it is doing and duplicate it if you have complete control over it. It does not much matter what it is how fancy an algorithm is being used or how it is configured.
If you want something to stay secret then it needs to self destruct when someone tries to fuck with it or anything it depends on to work.
Reminds me of the outraged cries of those 1337 few over the years who independantly discovered operating system x must be defective since you can bypass password authentication or access controls by mounting an unencrypted hard disk in a different computer. No shit.
This jyberish about which is better is irrelevent. Forbes article simply substitutes one misunderstanding for another.
AC comes out of spinning generators that produce electricity. Large scale production could not be rectified into DC back then. Even today it still is not all that practical but continues to improve. It is not about "transmission". DC has advantage over AC in transmission due to skin effect and lack of need for phase synchronization.
The real argument was NOT really about AC vs DC.. It was about local vs large scale means of production. A generator on every corner vs much fewer large scale generators. Fewer larger generators required higher voltages or unreasonable amounts of copper and could not be rectified. Smaller more numerous generators could make due with lower voltages that could be rectified.
While not surprising, it is quite annoying that every post on the internet about changing something in Windows is met with hatred and fear. Get over it,
When a statement like this is made there has to be some avenue of falsifying it should it be applied to support total nonsense. Otherwise the statement itself is essentially specious worthless drivel with no meaning in and of itself.
For example if Microsoft removed all support for sound and replaced it with a snazzy graphical fft/waveform display atop the screen..what prevents me from applying your argument to assert you are just being change adverse when you point out the new system is worthless to you?
I guess you could always use sign language during a skype call or a series of grunting noises that could be visually discerned from the FFT waterfall in lieu of english.
Rather than rally against people for being change adverse in my opinion the only acceptable course of discourse on this topic is to argue the MERITS of each and every change.
I'm having trouble parsing the difference between subsidy and dumping when the effective outcomes are the same.
Rather than taxing what are really awesome low cost chinese solar panels...I would much rather see US subsidies to enable effective competition with chinese market to further push down costs and improve quality and effeciency. The US may have higher labor costs but this is only temporary Chinese costs are rising and cheap labor is already fleeing China. We offset this the way we always do... by working smarter rather than harder..with more automation and technology vs sweat shops.
There are practical limits and maybe the US is justified in its actions...yet I just can't shake the feeling at the core the real issue is we're a bunch of pathetic loosers crying foul.
When foreign farmers are put at a disadvantage by US AG subsidies where is the US concern over the negative consequences of US government interference in the "free market".
Just WTF do they think they are going to when all Internet standards bodies unanimously refuse to be overseen? Shut down their mailing lists and brand all members terrorists?
At first I thought Microsoft was drinking soo much of their own metro tablet coolaid it had melted their collective brains and caused them to go insane.
Then I quickly realized a deeper truth. In their rush to emulate Apple MS no longer cares about me or my needs. A list of 30 useless features and a big fuck you over start menu makes my point for me. It is not about "new" or changes.. It is about flushing their existing market in an attempt to make more money in a different one currently saturated by Apple.
Oh and.. you gotta love being able to run two applications at once on the same display... Like rediscovering dos era deskview all over again...WOW.
So long MS.
While I am not able to remember when I last saw a floppy disk icon I appreciate and identify with your insatiable thirst for cherry picking and hyperbole.
Radio buttons... Thanks for the education. I never gave it a second thought or made that connection because like yourself I'm a fucking idiot. Speaking of connections how does this label count as an icon that "does not make sense" anymore? What icon? And since when the hell do non-programmers (using term very loosly) even know radio buttons are called radio buttons anyway?
'No, books didn't "keep our place when we turned them off."' Personally I use old movie tickets as bookmarks while debugging my punch cards.
"I use folders because I use the 43 Folders organizational system"
You admit even you use folders and yet this still makes your list of 14 icons that don't make sense anymore. Why is your nonsense even on slashdot? How much moola did it take to get ./ to sell its soul? Why am I wasting my time replying to this? I suspect its cause we're both fucking idiots.
"The world's most advanced phones include an icon that looks like a phone handset that you haven't touched in 20 years, unless you've used a pay phone recently."
What you really meant to say was "I have not had a job in 20 years"
"Soon the envelope itself will go away and the next generation will wonder what this rectangle means and what it has to do with email. "
Hate to break it to ya snail mail aint not going nowhere anytime soon. I'm drawn like a bug to headlights to origional point of this exercise.. "14 other old people icons that don't make sense anymore". I understand you may think the flux capacitor you ordered off ebay was sold as a "prop" only to cover for its amazing properties just as the xbox360 "box only" I ordered contained an actual xbox360.
"If you don't know who Johnny Carson is, how could you know that this is a old-style microphone?"
I know right cause if you like google "usb microphone" only modern futurastic usb era microphones appear and they look NOTHING like that icon.
"Want to indicate Settings or Setup to a twenty something? Show them a tool they've never used in their lives."
Now your just being rude and condescending. What I might have said previously in humor I mean sincerely now "FUCK YOU".
"No one under 30 has seen a Polaroid in years but we keep using them for icons. Instagram sold for $1B with an icon whose subtlety was lost on its target audience"
Ok so your under 30... now lets see if we can narrow the field with our "binoculars"... 12? 11?.. close?
That instagram icon does not show any slots with pictures coming out of it. In fact it does not even remotly resemble a real polariod camera at all. The only resembelence I see is a misplaced iconic rainbow stripe. It actually resembles a nondescript film camera. Instagram uses such icons because nostalgia is the whole fucking point of instagram.
The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.
We can achieve the same goal of reducing carbon output by instead investing that money into first-world research and development of alternative fuels. Full implementation then eliminates carbon emissions altogether, a goal which can't be achieved by market-based carbon neutrality alone.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If there is not a MARKET BASED need for alternate fuels everyone will use coal and tar shit until the end of time. Work necessary to change will never be reached.
You can (try to) invest all the money you want into research and subsidies ... in the real world huge economies of scale are required to achive market viability with alternate energy.
Artifically changing market behavior by imposing carbon levies makes sense to me in the abstract. Implementation is everything. Piss poor corruption (Energy lobbies) based implementation may well end up being a sham but I'm still rather fond of the abstract concept.