Exactly type of phone I would want. Love physical keyboards:
1. Pushing buttons is nicer experience v pushing on slates of glass 2. Faster inputs 3. Take up less on-screen space v on-screen keyboard 4. Instant speed dials 5. Instant software access shortcuts 6. Screen big enough I wouldn't give a F*** about lost space when keyboard was not needed.
I would get one as soon as I could if it didn't have blackberry "security" and a non-replaceable battery. Chances of modifying this thing to remove Vendor and Google spyware is zero so no point even considering it.
Saying SS7 is vulnerable is like saying BGP is vulnerable. It's a fools errand to believe it is even possible to build a global, inclusive non-tyrannical network that is also globally trusted. The best you can hope for is a mostly functional network.
On mobile it's effectively all plaintext all the time like it's 1993. Very disappointed POTS networks are still intact. We obviously don't have our shit together.
Google earth is only Google application I ever wanted a 64-bit version for because I'm tired of seeing it hit 2GB process limit and promptly crash. Apparently checking memory is too hard.
Unless an app actually legitimately requires more than the 32-bit process limit I prefer 32-bit apps for the following reasons:
1. Slightly less memory overhead/w 32-bit address space.
2. No matter what a user process won't go haywire and run your system out of memory leaving your entire system in virtual memory swap hell.
On windows 64-bit for 64-bit's sake in the absence of a legitimate need to address more memory (A web browser does not constitute a legitimate need) simply because 64 is a higher number than 32 is a fruitless enterprise. All of the technobabble differences are a wash with no tangible benefit to the end user.
Yet another brick on the road to absolute tyranny.
Another vendor wants to control everything.. in pursuit keep churning out nonsensical justifications... oh...it's more secure... uh huh.. can't even prevent their own software from being unintentionally compromised when they fully control source code and all aspects of development...I'm sure they have the power to properly vet all the shitware CAUSED by race to the bottom app store environments... jails and hypervisors keep users safe not preventing unblessed execution... oh and the ever priceless when everyone implements the same shit we do THEY suck at it... Particularly rich argument given how resource intensive windows update is. If they wanted to they could create a useful vendor independent interface for managing updates the same way software installation interfaces are standardized and widely used because they provide a useful path of least resistance and value to users and vendors alike.
No this is nothing more than a selfish power grab. Many are clamoring to bring about a "future" in which unclean hands are forbidden from owning general purpose computers where all software is locked down for approval by state/megacorp. Centralized control, centralized extraction of value from the market, monopolistic dominance and pervasive monitoring. As we have seen demonstrated with iPhone's denying rights/censorship using technical measures divorced from anything resembling representative governance.
A more likely outcome is sufficient number of people abandon Windows forever allocating more resources for development of alternatives hastening a future in which MS is no longer relevant. I fully expect Microsoft will "die trying" to turn Windows into the next Apple iPhone.
MS management couldn't even understand desktop users didn't want crummy watered down interfaces.. or locked down windows that couldn't run their software (RT) when they started down their path to madness starting with Windows 8 "metro" shell... Now after fully embracing the same business practices as malware vendors they have become incapable of performing the basic function of provisioning more value to their customers. Inevitably someone else will fill the vacuum.
There is remote provisioning for Intel ME / Intel vPro, but it's not the easiest thing in the world to set up, much less spoof. For example, you would need to have a certificate signed by a public provider that is specifically signed for Intel ME provisioning, and the domain on that cert needs to match the domain being offered by DHCP on the network. This ensures that a public CA has basically signed off on your ownership of that domain, and that you also own your network to a decent degree by controlling the infrastructure.
DHCP is not a secure protocol so no point in even mentioning it.
The ability to legitimately obtain a certificate in exchange for money or illegitimately obtain it by compromising ANYONE who has one is hardly what I would consider an insurmountable hurdle... Barely qualifies as a speed bump for a targeted attack.
Is there even a useful revocation procedure for known fraudulently obtained or compromised certs clients are REQUIRED to follow prior to getting 0wn3d?
Please shut the fuck up, you're only spreading disinformation.
What part of it is technically inaccurate?
AMT is a killer feature for businesses. It allows full remote management and recovery of headless servers. It's not a backdoor, it's a frontdoor. The feature has never been hidden, it's been advertised.
Crying about Intel is part of your disinformation. You're acting like only Intel does this. AMD does it too as well as some of the smaller companies. It's an extremely useful feature.
However, the companies know the risks (or just want to charge you more for more features) so you have to enable it. You can buy the machines pre-enabled or you can enable it yourself, but it's not enabled by default on consumer PCs. This bug only effects systems with AMT turned on.
I'm a consumer. It came listening on TCP ports on my computer and I sure as f*** never turned it on.
What's the big deal? Just turn it off in the BIOS.
Oh nothing... just forgotten computer within a computer listening on wireless and wired Ethernet interfaces that is never updated and has total access to everything. Nothing to be concerned about.
Not like anyone outside the LAN can break into your computer using AMT unless you have a really messed up router/firewall configuration.
Good point. I mean all consumer routers are secure and can't be hacked with ease to perpetrate such a hack.
AMT is NOT defective by design because even when the system is working properly as designed I have to buy a cert from a valid certificate authority and broadcast DHCP on your LAN with domain corresponding to my cert to own you. This makes AMT secure.
And I believe most laptops have it off by default, which is good because having it on while joining public wireless is a really bad idea.
The first I ever heard about this AMT shit I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out how the F*** ports were open on my laptop computer that don't even show up in the F**** stack. When the ports remained open even after booting a Linux live distro I was even more pissed off... the last straw was when the ports remained open when the computer was turned off....F***** O..F..F...
Oh and by the way you can't disable AMT... there is no option to do that in the bios anywhere and believe me I've looked... the best you can do is disable the MMU which is used to virtualize hardware access so the NICs can be shared by both computers at the same time.
"Since then, Google has seen a 23 percent reduction in the fraction of navigations to HTTP pages with password or credit card forms on Chrome for desktop. "
It doesn't make technical sense that "Google could slow data to your ISP". Comcast offers no services to me if Comcast is not my ISP. If Comcast is my ISP, this means Google is making THEIR OWN servers slow, so using Google is slow.
Makes perfect sense to me. Google and a handful of other big content providers *IS* the "Internet" for all intents and purposes for too many.
If Google is slow customers are guaranteed to blame and or bitch to their ISP regardless of technical merit or who is actually at fault. If Google ever had a big enough stake in the ISP market there may even be market incentive for them to try this. Right now obviously if they tried this they would only be hurting themselves.
What is most alarming to me is pace in general of both aggregation and vertical integration. It just isn't big ISPs getting bigger it's big ISPs becoming prodigies and compuserves, standing up content production.. owning both eyeballs and content. They ultimately would turn the Internet into something resembling pre-Internet era silos if they could possibly get away with it.
Google for example is search engine, content provider, ISP, browser vendor, transport protocol and operating system. They are actively working on taking over the whole stack from perspective of a corporate culture that publically embraces NIH syndrome as a badge of honor.
When you install chrome and visit a Google website using QUIC the congestion algorithm is completely controlled by Google with a congestion backoff half as aggressive as a normal TCP session. When you own everything you are able to maximally leverage your market position.
Right now Google owning ISP market is as far fetched as Comcast replacing Google search yet there seems to be an unambiguous trend in this general direction.
As aggregation continues business models will evolve and what seems ridiculous today will become tomorrows reality. For example Microsoft used to make money selling software their customers wanted. Now they make money selling out their customers.
That I only ever browse Amazon anymore to browse and then go get the same thing on eBay or locally only cheaper and with much faster shipping.
New movies... Well lets see $20 on Amazon assuming they will even sell it to you without prime... $7 for same thing on eBay.
I think it will be a very long time before machine learning algorithms are able to deal with conflicting information or do anything other than seek locally optimal solutions.
This is a variation of the same old story where stores use "big data" to only stock shelves with what has been shown to make the most money only for customers to get annoyed they don't have everything on their list and shop elsewhere.
When enough people get annoyed at the games enough to modify their behavior and go elsewhere as I have done all their super fancy algorithms and or cheap genetic A/B schemes still won't have a clue on earth why.
The interface is not standardized. Same code running in a real application tier has no such dependencies on database specific language bindings to operate.
The advantage of having that logic reside inside the DB server versus in a container or separate app server is that you save all the network traffic moving data back and forth
You accomplish this by running your code on the same computer in a separate process using standardized data access APIs.
the app code is the same in either place and is just as modular either way. All that changes is where it's deployed.
I have a bad feeling about this. Someone points out the obvious when application becomes the database you lose the ability for application to leverage multiple databases or connect to different databases or have the ability to isolate application from the database due to application resource constraints.. and your response.. no no it's still the same application it can just as easily connect to those databases and do all the things a separate application can do.
The reality is you don't get to have it both ways. That kind of flexibility only comes by paying the no-shortcuts tax at which point there is zero reason to even think about embedding into the database in the first place.
You sound like one of those Java/Hibernate guys: "Why would I write a 20 line function in the database when I can write a few hundred lines of boilerplate, configuration, and interface code that works almost as well?" Do you still use Struts?
I don't drink Java/struts/hibernate. I have written more extended procedures than I care to admit over the years and today find myself completely unable to retroactively justify any of those decisions.
I understand the appeal of these things I know why people want to use them. I also know from experience in non-trivial environments these tendencies have cost prohibitive consequences.
On the low end you can in get away with virtually every bad practice you want.. it doesn't matter. Sloppiness does not scale and by scale I do not mean the amount of data I mean the complexity of the overall system.
Write your business logic in the language which is most appropriate and run it where it's most convenient. The "separation dogma" was a fad that has passed.
RO0OFL nice. Almost thought you were being serious.
This is a great example of what happens when hardware and OS vendors control software your allowed to use.
Of course China is going to leverage this to get their way as will everyone else globally with sufficient financial or political interest. When you allow so much power to be aggregated into the hands of so few this is the natural predictable result.
The people who designed these systems knew full well in an environment with widespread adoption there would be a wide range of incentives to intentionally exploit this using unauthenticated local and broadcast communications. This is only the beginning.
I hope all those upset about burger king "hacking" their devices continue to enjoy their Surveillance Marketed As Revolutionary Technology devices.
Just have a look at the Wikipedia page for Goreanism to see the photo of the woman there. No wonder this philosophy is so repellent. Social Darwinism and eugenics are both totally discredited and deserve no platform, anywhere.
MLK was only half right when he famously said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
The problem is not so much reason for being judged it's the act of judgment itself.
Person x disagrees with y and passes judgment other people who think y are somehow not deserving of a, b and c as a result. Often very same people superficially preaching tolerance and respect end up in fact demonstrating neither.
I think these signators don't understand what they're protesting. The letter is shot through with social justice language, but Larry Garfield follows a misogynistic creed and there is nothing wrong with ousting him.
The Gorean philosophy is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead.
Using phrases "totally discredited" and "deserve no platform" while invoking guilt by association is priceless.
I can't even imagine the fruits same device aimed at those who follow a particular Abrahamic religious faiths would yield.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their live" (SJW Aneurism warning)
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Only verse in the whole goddamn bible worth teaching your kids)
This bullshit of course goes on and on forever and ever. If your feel the need to judge people then at least have the goddamn initiative to judge them based on what they actually do not just lazily make assertions based on interpretation of group characteristics of tribal affiliations.
I don't see positive outcomes from allowing operating system vendors to monopolizing software distribution channels.
We've already seen the fruits of Apple leveraging it's position. Censoring objectionable software and actively snubbing apps from existence which happen to compete with or run afoul of Apple interests.
The vendor run app store concept is inherently deleterious. It aggregates way too much power into the hands of a few and is a breeding ground for proliferation of defacto monopolies. Even where technically possible to get software elsewhere the presence of a dominant channel having achieved critical mass means it cannot simply be bypassed in any meaningful way.. not by vendors nor by customers.
Windows app store is currently a joke yet given their track record with Windows phone, Windows RT and XBOX it's blatantly clear to me what Microsoft wants to do and where they want to go with this. They want a piece of everything and if they could get away with preventing execution of software that didn't come from a source they control they would do it in a heartbeat.
I just wanted to know what the actual outcome was of Nvidia's approach vs other human developed self driving software simply using ANNs for pattern recognition. Did it work better or worse than Tesla et al? The paper doesn't seem to say.
All I was able to extract was 98% figure relating to percentage of time in self-driving mode. Full self driving in all conditions is a problem with an extremely long tail rendering figures like these mostly worthless. It's not hard to create a system that works right the vast majority of the time but until you can demonstrate all the time or at least on par with skilled humans these figures are not all that useful.
If you can establish better outcomes then personally I don't much care what's in the box. It's indecipherable gibberish to most users of the technology anyway.
The only thing I would have a problem with is allowing learning on the job vs a controlled training environment. Viral propagation of clever driving style memes aside the system still executes code deterministically. Even if you don't know how it works you can still replay inputs against a factory trained network and reproduce the same failures. You can still beat down failure rates and improve reliability over time using the same trial and error techniques crackpot developers the world over are already intimately familiar.
I have a paranoid iptables firewall. Having said that, DID (Defense In Depth) always helps. I don't have a complacent "it can't happen to me attitude". I *WANT* a NAT'ing router between my home machines and the internet for an extra layer of protection.
1:many NAT is *LESS* secure than SPI. NAT requires added complexity to support ALGs, packet mangling and tolerance of ambiguous assumptions about application state.
I have more than enough IPv4 addresses allocated to me and my servers. I don't need IPv6.
Sorry the rest of you have to fight over IPs. I've got plenty (no you can't have them).
It is great to hear you have enough IPv4 addresses. What happens when you want to communicate with someone who happens to be less fortunate?
Speaking for myself restoring the Internet to a viable network of PEERs where everyone has the capability if desired to directly address everyone else is of upmost importance to countering the proliferation of centralized manure currently waging war against *my* Internet.
IPv6 is well worth any initial hardship or annoyance. Even if everyone hides behind an SPI anyway the ability to trivially prime direct connections with a 1:1 map is an absolutely priceless capability by itself without getting to global costs of dealing with IPv4 scarcity or people being forced into CGN land.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly type of phone I would want. Love physical keyboards:
1. Pushing buttons is nicer experience v pushing on slates of glass
2. Faster inputs
3. Take up less on-screen space v on-screen keyboard
4. Instant speed dials
5. Instant software access shortcuts
6. Screen big enough I wouldn't give a F*** about lost space when keyboard was not needed.
I would get one as soon as I could if it didn't have blackberry "security" and a non-replaceable battery. Chances of modifying this thing to remove Vendor and Google spyware is zero so no point even considering it.
If you don't want to get owned like a poor end user by our insecure malware pay us more money and we'll give you a version that's secure.
Personally I think it's going to take more than adding another layer of indirection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Firefox is on a better track using language imposed constraints (e.g. Rust) to improve security.
Saying SS7 is vulnerable is like saying BGP is vulnerable. It's a fools errand to believe it is even possible to build a global, inclusive non-tyrannical network that is also globally trusted. The best you can hope for is a mostly functional network.
On mobile it's effectively all plaintext all the time like it's 1993. Very disappointed POTS networks are still intact. We obviously don't have our shit together.
Google earth is only Google application I ever wanted a 64-bit version for because I'm tired of seeing it hit 2GB process limit and promptly crash. Apparently checking memory is too hard.
Unless an app actually legitimately requires more than the 32-bit process limit I prefer 32-bit apps for the following reasons:
1. Slightly less memory overhead /w 32-bit address space.
2. No matter what a user process won't go haywire and run your system out of memory leaving your entire system in virtual memory swap hell.
On windows 64-bit for 64-bit's sake in the absence of a legitimate need to address more memory (A web browser does not constitute a legitimate need) simply because 64 is a higher number than 32 is a fruitless enterprise. All of the technobabble differences are a wash with no tangible benefit to the end user.
Yet another brick on the road to absolute tyranny.
Another vendor wants to control everything.. in pursuit keep churning out nonsensical justifications... oh...it's more secure... uh huh.. can't even prevent their own software from being unintentionally compromised when they fully control source code and all aspects of development...I'm sure they have the power to properly vet all the shitware CAUSED by race to the bottom app store environments... jails and hypervisors keep users safe not preventing unblessed execution... oh and the ever priceless when everyone implements the same shit we do THEY suck at it... Particularly rich argument given how resource intensive windows update is. If they wanted to they could create a useful vendor independent interface for managing updates the same way software installation interfaces are standardized and widely used because they provide a useful path of least resistance and value to users and vendors alike.
No this is nothing more than a selfish power grab. Many are clamoring to bring about a "future" in which unclean hands are forbidden from owning general purpose computers where all software is locked down for approval by state/megacorp. Centralized control, centralized extraction of value from the market, monopolistic dominance and pervasive monitoring. As we have seen demonstrated with iPhone's denying rights/censorship using technical measures divorced from anything resembling representative governance.
A more likely outcome is sufficient number of people abandon Windows forever allocating more resources for development of alternatives hastening a future in which MS is no longer relevant. I fully expect Microsoft will "die trying" to turn Windows into the next Apple iPhone.
MS management couldn't even understand desktop users didn't want crummy watered down interfaces.. or locked down windows that couldn't run their software (RT) when they started down their path to madness starting with Windows 8 "metro" shell... Now after fully embracing the same business practices as malware vendors they have become incapable of performing the basic function of provisioning more value to their customers. Inevitably someone else will fill the vacuum.
There is remote provisioning for Intel ME / Intel vPro, but it's not the easiest thing in the world to set up, much less spoof. For example, you would need to have a certificate signed by a public provider that is specifically signed for Intel ME provisioning, and the domain on that cert needs to match the domain being offered by DHCP on the network. This ensures that a public CA has basically signed off on your ownership of that domain, and that you also own your network to a decent degree by controlling the infrastructure.
DHCP is not a secure protocol so no point in even mentioning it.
The ability to legitimately obtain a certificate in exchange for money or illegitimately obtain it by compromising ANYONE who has one is hardly what I would consider an insurmountable hurdle... Barely qualifies as a speed bump for a targeted attack.
Is there even a useful revocation procedure for known fraudulently obtained or compromised certs clients are REQUIRED to follow prior to getting 0wn3d?
Can all of that be beaten?
All of what?
Please shut the fuck up, you're only spreading disinformation.
What part of it is technically inaccurate?
AMT is a killer feature for businesses. It allows full remote management and recovery of headless servers. It's not a backdoor, it's a frontdoor. The feature has never been hidden, it's been advertised.
Oh god what year is this? Let me help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Crying about Intel is part of your disinformation. You're acting like only Intel does this. AMD does it too as well as some of the smaller companies. It's an extremely useful feature.
Let me help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However, the companies know the risks (or just want to charge you more for more features) so you have to enable it. You can buy the machines pre-enabled or you can enable it yourself, but it's not enabled by default on consumer PCs. This bug only effects systems with AMT turned on.
I'm a consumer. It came listening on TCP ports on my computer and I sure as f*** never turned it on.
What's the big deal? Just turn it off in the BIOS.
Oh nothing... just forgotten computer within a computer listening on wireless and wired Ethernet interfaces that is never updated and has total access to everything. Nothing to be concerned about.
Not like anyone outside the LAN can break into your computer using AMT unless you have a really messed up router/firewall configuration.
Good point. I mean all consumer routers are secure and can't be hacked with ease to perpetrate such a hack.
AMT is NOT defective by design because even when the system is working properly as designed I have to buy a cert from a valid certificate authority and broadcast DHCP on your LAN with domain corresponding to my cert to own you. This makes AMT secure.
And I believe most laptops have it off by default, which is good because having it on while joining public wireless is a really bad idea.
The first I ever heard about this AMT shit I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out how the F*** ports were open on my laptop computer that don't even show up in the F**** stack. When the ports remained open even after booting a Linux live distro I was even more pissed off... the last straw was when the ports remained open when the computer was turned off....F***** O..F..F...
Oh and by the way you can't disable AMT... there is no option to do that in the bios anywhere and believe me I've looked... the best you can do is disable the MMU which is used to virtualize hardware access so the NICs can be shared by both computers at the same time.
"Since then, Google has seen a 23 percent reduction in the fraction of navigations to HTTP pages with password or credit card forms on Chrome for desktop. "
How they know this?
It doesn't make technical sense that "Google could slow data to your ISP". Comcast offers no services to me if Comcast is not my ISP. If Comcast is my ISP, this means Google is making THEIR OWN servers slow, so using Google is slow.
Makes perfect sense to me. Google and a handful of other big content providers *IS* the "Internet" for all intents and purposes for too many.
If Google is slow customers are guaranteed to blame and or bitch to their ISP regardless of technical merit or who is actually at fault. If Google ever had a big enough stake in the ISP market there may even be market incentive for them to try this. Right now obviously if they tried this they would only be hurting themselves.
What is most alarming to me is pace in general of both aggregation and vertical integration. It just isn't big ISPs getting bigger it's big ISPs becoming prodigies and compuserves, standing up content production.. owning both eyeballs and content. They ultimately would turn the Internet into something resembling pre-Internet era silos if they could possibly get away with it.
Google for example is search engine, content provider, ISP, browser vendor, transport protocol and operating system. They are actively working on taking over the whole stack from perspective of a corporate culture that publically embraces NIH syndrome as a badge of honor.
When you install chrome and visit a Google website using QUIC the congestion algorithm is completely controlled by Google with a congestion backoff half as aggressive as a normal TCP session. When you own everything you are able to maximally leverage your market position.
Right now Google owning ISP market is as far fetched as Comcast replacing Google search yet there seems to be an unambiguous trend in this general direction.
As aggregation continues business models will evolve and what seems ridiculous today will become tomorrows reality. For example Microsoft used to make money selling software their customers wanted. Now they make money selling out their customers.
That I only ever browse Amazon anymore to browse and then go get the same thing on eBay or locally only cheaper and with much faster shipping.
New movies... Well lets see $20 on Amazon assuming they will even sell it to you without prime... $7 for same thing on eBay.
I think it will be a very long time before machine learning algorithms are able to deal with conflicting information or do anything other than seek locally optimal solutions.
This is a variation of the same old story where stores use "big data" to only stock shelves with what has been shown to make the most money only for customers to get annoyed they don't have everything on their list and shop elsewhere.
When enough people get annoyed at the games enough to modify their behavior and go elsewhere as I have done all their super fancy algorithms and or cheap genetic A/B schemes still won't have a clue on earth why.
How exactly? That makes no sense.
The interface is not standardized. Same code running in a real application tier has no such dependencies on database specific language bindings to operate.
The advantage of having that logic reside inside the DB server versus in a container or separate app server is that you save all the network traffic moving data back and forth
You accomplish this by running your code on the same computer in a separate process using standardized data access APIs.
the app code is the same in either place and is just as modular either way. All that changes is where it's deployed.
I have a bad feeling about this. Someone points out the obvious when application becomes the database you lose the ability for application to leverage multiple databases or connect to different databases or have the ability to isolate application from the database due to application resource constraints.. and your response.. no no it's still the same application it can just as easily connect to those databases and do all the things a separate application can do.
The reality is you don't get to have it both ways. That kind of flexibility only comes by paying the no-shortcuts tax at which point there is zero reason to even think about embedding into the database in the first place.
You sound like one of those Java/Hibernate guys: "Why would I write a 20 line function in the database when I can write a few hundred lines of boilerplate, configuration, and interface code that works almost as well?" Do you still use Struts?
I don't drink Java/struts/hibernate. I have written more extended procedures than I care to admit over the years and today find myself completely unable to retroactively justify any of those decisions.
I understand the appeal of these things I know why people want to use them. I also know from experience in non-trivial environments these tendencies have cost prohibitive consequences.
On the low end you can in get away with virtually every bad practice you want.. it doesn't matter. Sloppiness does not scale and by scale I do not mean the amount of data I mean the complexity of the overall system.
Embedding within the database, on the hand, is a more exotic and a very useful feature.
For licensing and vendor lock-in.
Write your business logic in the language which is most appropriate and run it where it's most convenient. The "separation dogma" was a fad that has passed.
RO0OFL nice. Almost thought you were being serious.
If python integration is anything like .NET or java language bindings:
1. You won't see any performance benefit vs. shared memory
2. You will get hit with all of the downsides of ignoring separation dogma for temporary expediency.
This is a great example of what happens when hardware and OS vendors control software your allowed to use.
Of course China is going to leverage this to get their way as will everyone else globally with sufficient financial or political interest. When you allow so much power to be aggregated into the hands of so few this is the natural predictable result.
On topic, this is this actually illegal
In this case seems nothing was "accessed" and nothing "protected" bypassed. There seems to be no criminal intent to defraud.. etc.
Would be interested in hearing details about what law(s) were broken and what aspects make it illegal in your view.
The people who designed these systems knew full well in an environment with widespread adoption there would be a wide range of incentives to intentionally exploit this using unauthenticated local and broadcast communications. This is only the beginning.
I hope all those upset about burger king "hacking" their devices continue to enjoy their Surveillance Marketed As Revolutionary Technology devices.
Just have a look at the Wikipedia page for Goreanism to see the photo of the woman there. No wonder this philosophy is so repellent. Social Darwinism and eugenics are both totally discredited and deserve no platform, anywhere.
MLK was only half right when he famously said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
The problem is not so much reason for being judged it's the act of judgment itself.
Person x disagrees with y and passes judgment other people who think y are somehow not deserving of a, b and c as a result. Often very same people superficially preaching tolerance and respect end up in fact demonstrating neither.
I think these signators don't understand what they're protesting. The letter is shot through with social justice language, but Larry Garfield follows a misogynistic creed and there is nothing wrong with ousting him.
The Gorean philosophy is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead.
Using phrases "totally discredited" and "deserve no platform" while invoking guilt by association is priceless.
I can't even imagine the fruits same device aimed at those who follow a particular Abrahamic religious faiths would yield.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their live" (SJW Aneurism warning)
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Only verse in the whole goddamn bible worth teaching your kids)
This bullshit of course goes on and on forever and ever. If your feel the need to judge people then at least have the goddamn initiative to judge them based on what they actually do not just lazily make assertions based on interpretation of group characteristics of tribal affiliations.
I don't see positive outcomes from allowing operating system vendors to monopolizing software distribution channels.
We've already seen the fruits of Apple leveraging it's position. Censoring objectionable software and actively snubbing apps from existence which happen to compete with or run afoul of Apple interests.
The vendor run app store concept is inherently deleterious. It aggregates way too much power into the hands of a few and is a breeding ground for proliferation of defacto monopolies. Even where technically possible to get software elsewhere the presence of a dominant channel having achieved critical mass means it cannot simply be bypassed in any meaningful way.. not by vendors nor by customers.
Windows app store is currently a joke yet given their track record with Windows phone, Windows RT and XBOX it's blatantly clear to me what Microsoft wants to do and where they want to go with this. They want a piece of everything and if they could get away with preventing execution of software that didn't come from a source they control they would do it in a heartbeat.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.073...
I just wanted to know what the actual outcome was of Nvidia's approach vs other human developed self driving software simply using ANNs for pattern recognition. Did it work better or worse than Tesla et al? The paper doesn't seem to say.
All I was able to extract was 98% figure relating to percentage of time in self-driving mode. Full self driving in all conditions is a problem with an extremely long tail rendering figures like these mostly worthless. It's not hard to create a system that works right the vast majority of the time but until you can demonstrate all the time or at least on par with skilled humans these figures are not all that useful.
If you can establish better outcomes then personally I don't much care what's in the box. It's indecipherable gibberish to most users of the technology anyway.
The only thing I would have a problem with is allowing learning on the job vs a controlled training environment. Viral propagation of clever driving style memes aside the system still executes code deterministically. Even if you don't know how it works you can still replay inputs against a factory trained network and reproduce the same failures. You can still beat down failure rates and improve reliability over time using the same trial and error techniques crackpot developers the world over are already intimately familiar.
I have a paranoid iptables firewall. Having said that, DID (Defense In Depth) always helps. I don't have a complacent "it can't happen to me attitude". I *WANT* a NAT'ing router between my home machines and the internet for an extra layer of protection.
1:many NAT is *LESS* secure than SPI. NAT requires added complexity to support ALGs, packet mangling and tolerance of ambiguous assumptions about application state.
I have more than enough IPv4 addresses allocated to me and my servers. I don't need IPv6.
Sorry the rest of you have to fight over IPs. I've got plenty (no you can't have them).
It is great to hear you have enough IPv4 addresses. What happens when you want to communicate with someone who happens to be less fortunate?
Speaking for myself restoring the Internet to a viable network of PEERs where everyone has the capability if desired to directly address everyone else is of upmost importance to countering the proliferation of centralized manure currently waging war against *my* Internet.
IPv6 is well worth any initial hardship or annoyance. Even if everyone hides behind an SPI anyway the ability to trivially prime direct connections with a 1:1 map is an absolutely priceless capability by itself without getting to global costs of dealing with IPv4 scarcity or people being forced into CGN land.
Takes two to Tango.