Wealth is "ownership of the means of production", not "standard of living".
Wealth can be anything. Wealth is how much people are worth. People can elect to spend their money any way they want. Most simply hoard it which is the biggest tragedy of all. At least building a super yacht, luxury submarine, floating airship mansion/castle or space station generates employment and contributes to the economy.
Yes, it would be good if wealth were less centralized, but good luck with that idea, no one has ever made that work without complete social collapse.
Good luck getting anyone to believe that one.
However, you don't have a materially lower standard of living because someone else has more wealth.
All of that extraneous money going to the wealthy had to have came from somewhere. Each dollar that sits idle in the collection of the rich has some form of opportunity cost associated with it. The economy suffers and with it everyone's standard of living.
The rich eat less than the poor in the US these days, and while they do have more material
LOL the rich eat babies and several million in the US still go hungry every year.
possessions it's not the middle ages. If the richest 0.1% consume 10x as much goods and services as the average, how much less does the average man have? Do the math.
This is the f****ing problem. It isn't that the rich are rich it is that they are little scrooge bitches who won't even use the money they have.
Provisioning more bandwidth require more natural resources, more time and energy, etc.
New routers don't take more resources to produce than earlier models even though they are vastly more capable, energy efficient and easier to manage. Bandwidth per strand of fiber is increasing at least 100 fold per decade with a healthy R&D pipeline of improvements in the works. Bandwidth availability isn't driven primarily by building more stuff it is driven primarily by continuous innovation funded by the need for more bandwidth and horizontal improvements in supporting technology. Once the engineering is done it is mostly "dead labor" from that point forward.
By that logic, Ferarris aren't scarce either because, if we wanted to, we could divert resources from other (more highly desired) ends and make a virtually limitless supply of Ferraris.
Production of many high end vehicles are intentionally limited to increase value and "exclusivity" which make rich people feel more "special".
I don't mean to cherry pick, just point out that when people are charged for what they use, they economize their uses better and there is less waste.
Given users have no control over efficiency of bandwidth utilization and compressed video transmission dominates Internet traffic "economize" actually means watch less video or reduce quality of said video... This translates into users deriving less value from service. Critically it also translates into less incentive for operators to invest in increased capacity.
Free markets work by encouraging competition. It makes no sense for companies to pay exuberant salaries to U.S. workers when similar results can be had for far less by outsourcing to countries whose citizens expect a standard of living far more meager than Americans. The Prophets promise to trickle upon those who worship at their alters.
Society thrives when wealth is well distributed. "Free markets" are a race to the bottom in slow motion. Eventually everyone who is not rich will be sleeping on dirt floors. You better believe that they are going to be really pissed off about it.
I, I see, redistribution is all well and good when it's someone else's wealth being redistributed, but when your job might go to someone poorer and more in need, well then that's a moral panic!
When I read what parent wrote your response makes no sense. No mention of "redistribution", moral panics or whining about anyone losing their job. This seems to be nothing more than a general statement about the dangers of aggregation of wealth. Something few disagree globalization significantly contributes. Specifically "Eventually everyone who is not rich will be sleeping on dirt floor" seems to make intent quite clear and unambiguous.
If you have a full-time job in the US chances are high you're a "world 1%er". All this outsourcing is very much the wealth of the 1% being redistributed to those in need - just at the whole-world scale. You don't actually have the moral high ground here, just so you know.
What does morality say about 85 people having the same wealth as half the worlds population?
I'm not sure why people have been clinging onto these ideals of "unlimited data."
I think the reason is that people don't want (to be bothered with) limits.
The vast majority of us use a very limited amount of data; why would you want to get lumped into a payment pool to help cover those who use excessive amounts?
If the vast majority of us used the amount of data I use the FCC would still classify broadband as 256k, I would be lucky if my maximum download rate was 1.2 mbit to say nothing of the 120 mbit I have today. DOCSIS 3.0 would not exist and if supporting high bandwidth PHYs did exist at all their costs would be doubly astronomical.
The rest of the world is moving to more finely-grained billing, which helps to more efficiently allocate scarce resources
This is "Malthusian" nonsense. Bandwidth is only as scarce as the will to provision more.
From first hand experience wired ISPs doing usage limits or metering around the world are multiplies of times worse than Comcast. When you have no incentive to build out capacity don't hope against hope ISP monopolies will do so anyway out of the goodness of their hearts.
cloud hosting and car insurance plans come to mind. Yet here we are, begging for a more expensive bill.
Don't make the mistake of cherry picking or using blanket statements about pricing consumption. Each scenario is different and must be considered on the merits.
What is the cost to ship a packet anywhere in the world vs same cost of a metered international call? The absence of metering made the Internet what it is today. Very existence of LCR and Internet hop-offs is evidence of which model is superior and which has utterly failed. Over time costing everything has lead to worse outcomes for everyone because it actively disincentivizes innovation by not forcing down the cost of communication.
For some reason I get very nervous with an out of band remote proprietary management system baked into recent Intel chips, which operates below the OS, and has not been independently audited and reviewed by trusted 3rd parties (such as those not associated with mass surveillance).
What is known isn't good either. All you need is a valid certificate purchasable from any CA in AMTs root list to totally own any system with default configuration if your ever in a position to broadcast DHCP...oh and the computer doesn't even need to be turned on to do it.
It seems that we are now in the age of hardware backdoors.
It can be disabled from bios in some systems and effectively nerf'd in others by disabling I/O virtualization needed to "share" hardware such as your NIC with the operating system.
Maybe AMD which cannot seem to compete with Intel on performance and low-power, can make a niche for itself as a secure (backdoorless) alternative.
These days, I would value my privacy over performance.
It is a good idea to check with vendor to make sure AMT can be disabled before purchasing.
The claim is that while sodium is more efficient per lumen, LEDs put out a directional light and so total lumens used is lower.
Apparently reflectors only work with led lighting.
This is also supposed to make the skies darker.
It precludes the ability to use narrow band filters making things worse for the people who care.
LEDs are also supposed to have a longer life, reducing maintenance costs.
We all know drivers will fail way before the lights themselves do but you still have a point. The question is does the cost of changing light bulbs more often outweigh cost of led lighting on society? In disruption of sleep in humans and animals and blue light related eye damage?
What I find really sad is that sodium lighting invented almost a century ago is still more efficient per output photon than led lighting is currently. Also much easier on the eyes while night driving. I absolutely hate blueish led lights slowly taking over the town. Just because something is "new" does not make it better.
If your trying to reward the hard work of your slave labor force with something other than an actual raise or bonus it absolutely is a very good idea to invent an important sounding title with the word "engineer" in it and "promote" them.
If you don't like how the word engineer is thrown around you can either use more words which more specifically qualifies what specifically you intent to say or you can try NSA style to convince everyone the word means something other than what they think it does.
The term "engineer" appears to be sufficiently nebulous having been applied in such a wide range of contexts and domains that it makes no sense to even ask the question. It doesn't matter what myself or any of you think it only matters what society in general thinks.
If you were to answer questions about about your job title with the words "I'm an engineer" do you think the person receiving your words would have any coherent clue what the f*** it is you do or are talking about? No of course not because the word engineer by itself is not sufficient.. It must be further qualified to convey meaning.
CNN unsurprisingly had been running hard with the bomb narrative even before they had any evidence of any kind to support it.
If people in the US government are making the claim a bomb took down flight 9268 then why the hell does this information have to be unofficially leaked to the media with no attribution? Is there no better way to communicate? The same person apparently hedges by saying "there has not been a formal conclusion" and uses weasel words like "definite feeling"... WTF does that even mean?
The bomb narrative happens to be the most profitable one for both stated US interests against Russia's Syria adventures and CNN's ratings with all assertions carefully constructed such that they get to walk away when they are proven to be wrong.
I have no faith or reason to believe any of this conjecturbation. I'll wait for investigation by the grownups actually doing the work.
That they are even declaring rules for "internet firms" holding customer data and facilitating communications and encryption means we have already failed. The network was intended to be a network of PEERS. Third parties should only be used for discovery they should not be relied upon to facilitate communication. The Internet will not "route around censorship" when the only thing left is a handful of content companies controlling everything.
Don't use third parties to facilitate communication. Communicate directly amoungst yourselves this way both parties to the communication always have a way to decrypt it.
It's not a safe space for them to communicate on a fixed line telephone or a mobile phone, we shouldn't allow the internet to be a safe space for them to communicate and do bad things
Since the dawn of civilization people have communicated in code to obscure their communications from others. This isn't a new phenomenon it is an ancient one. They did it on land line phones, they did it in hand delivered notes, they did it electronically with modems, they do it in the mail, on mobiles, telegraphs, in person. People leave hidden or obvious public messages which are only understandable by intended recipients. You can't prevent use of things like OTP codebooks even if you took everyone's computers away.
The difference is encryption today takes less manual effort to pull off than it has in the past and more people feel compelled to use it if for no other reason than to protect themselves from the hostile environment they find themselves.
I think it is absurd to suggest the police and the security services have a kind of casual desire to intrude on the privacy of the innocent
This is amusing governments grant themselves all kinds of powers to snoop around and spy on their own people then act surprised when nobody believe a damn thing they have to say. Enough people have access to the government codebook to know what the words "terrorist" and "children" really mean.
The biggest problem I see is existence of crap like:
mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr);
Where such code exists you can expect bugs to not be far behind.
What I especially dislike is Linus's proposal:
if (mtu
Hey lets just do the same exact operation twice... now that provides no opportunity for mistakes and BTW nice magic number.
I've learned the hard way over the years when you write a parser to build or consume packets under no circumstance should code to explicitly count bytes like this be allowed to exist. Write or reuse a higher level function to add or consume structures to centralize constraint checking. MUCH less opportunity to screw something up and less code/easier to read in the long run.
The problem is "graphics mini operating system" koolaid drunk by AMD. I just want to run my shit and not be hampered by delusions of grandeur and scope creep of vendors. As a consumer I don't want an operating system I want a driver. Sure as heck won't stand for graphics drivers communicating with Facebook.
For years I made a point of staying away from AMD because their drivers have always sucked/crashed and CCC is a bloated piece of crap. It is good they want to focus on fixing these problems yet all I really want are drivers that work. Social media integration is evidence AMD has no discipline and will continue to annoy people away from its products with unnecessary bullshit.
What I am most entertained by are all these arbitrary classifications of who they claim you are not allowed to talk shit about. race, sex, religion out of bounds.....This only leaves fat people, girls with mustaches, 4 eyes, old geezers, fugly peeplz, stupid peeplz, smart people, mean people, smelly people, racist people, gullible people, boring people, poor, rich, upppppies, weaklings, jocks, geeks, prudes, sluts, whores, and stuck up fools...... the reality is everyone is so goddamn tribal and judgmental out their minds...everyone...yes this means you too... The worst by far are paradoxically subhumans like these "dumb fucks" who feel justified working to make the system enforce their views on others by force. That right there is the definition of intolerance.
Sticks and stones bitches... really everyone just needs to get over themselves... freedom isn't free.. tolerance of assholes is required for free societies to be free. If you can't stomach freedom then please get the fuck out of my country and don't let lady liberty bitch slap you on your ride out. (kidding you can stay but fuck you precious snowflake triggering fucks all of you get a clue, get a job and take a shower)
What I find interest is the play not just to close off remaining piddly avenues for people to challenge misappropriation of private data it is blocking off even avenues for people to discover anything at all with partially redundant FOIA restrictions.
TLSv1 is not insecure regardless of what PCI asserts. There have been a number of implementation flaws having been fixed in various implementations and design flaws that have been effectively worked around. There are no credible attacks for a fully patched and properly configured TLSv1 implementation.
SHA-1 vulnerabilities DO NOT affect sites still using SHA-1 any more than they affect everyone else still willing to accept certs with SHA1.
The reason for this is simple: If I'm an attacker crafting public keys with useful signature collisions I sure as heck will not be wasting my time with one individual site. Instead I will be going after intermediate certificates which offer me the ability to link my own intermediate and impersonate every site on the planet to any browser on the planet still willing to accept SHA1 signatures.
If your browser still accepts SHA-1 your not really any more secure than users of these mil sites.
Right... We did a V2V experiment in 2012 where we measured road friction in corners using the ABS sensors from production vehicles. That was V2V because we announced the maximum safe speed to cars in the neighborhood.
This is worthless in the real world because friction varies by vehicle and path.
That was V2V because we announced the maximum safe speed to cars in the neighborhood. CV won't notice that, and if you're driving too fast for the corner your own sensors will detect the danger only when you're actually on the slippery patch - too late.
Infrared sensors have been demonstrated to detect the presence of ice, snow and water on roadways.
What you say about driver safety could also be said about surveillance : why use V2X when you have cameras and computing/CV? Sensors and communications can work together, both for safety and for surveillance.
The only communication worth a damn WRT vehicle safety is what actually occurs in the real world. In-vehicle RF transmission is an unnecessary liability in that compelling use cases simply don't exist. It can all be done with sensors that don't depend on the actions of others for proper operation.
For surveillance RF can be passively monitored from great distances with little cost or effort. Yes you can do the same with magnetometers, optical sensors and constellations of spy satellites in low earth orbit. For that matter you could pay people to stand on the corner and record license plate numbers of every car they observe going by. The difference is cost.
It isn't just that RF has no use case and will be used to lower the cost of enmasse surveillance it is also a liability. There is simply no way in hell to secure it. People can't even be bothered to secure ADS-B or AIS which are absolutely trivial relative to V2V. A system of transmitters depending on trust relationships between hundreds of millions of vehicles operated by hundreds of millions of people with physical access whom you have no reason at all to trust sounds like a credible plan.. doesn't it? The concept itself is nonsensical.
You don't need fancy communications networks to do any of the "driver safety" things V2V koolaid drinkers are talking about. They are already being done better and cheaper today in production vehicles with sensors that never have to rely on other vehicles or things equipped with working transmitters.
Technology has already been leap-frogged and made redundant by advances in computing/CV.
"V2X" is now just a massive waste of time and money to enrich industry and serve as yet another ridiculous excuse to eviscerate any remaining rights of individuals not to be stalked en-masse by governments, corporations and individuals. This is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem.
Lawyers, monitoring/ankle bracelets, ignition interlocks, "bail bonds", calling. I talked to someone a few months ago running a prison phone system. The basic gist many jails farm management out to one of a few providers who charge obscene rates and get away with it because those running the prisons don't care and don't want to deal with it. The very same story constantly repeats itself in government purchasing and health care. When its not your money you unsurprisingly tend not to care.
What is more egregious are stories I've heard first hand about ankle bracelets and how companies are able to get judges to basically demand a specific provider be used who unsurprisingly charge insane rates. Buy this or jail == $$$$$$$ profit $$$$$$$$
What happens when you can't or such a design would be more difficult than a global shared time reference?
It's not like you couldn't include your idea of your local time (whatever it is) in your NFS requests, and then have the server take its idea of its local time, generate a delta, and apply that to all the timestamps that you are trying to set on a file. Or conversely, when you do a stat, the server could include its idea of the local time, the client could use that to generate a delta vs. its own idea of local time, and apply that delta to the time being reported up from the kernel to user space.
What happens when every system can't just stamp their own "idea of local time" on to an event when it occurs? What happens when every systems "idea of local time" changes over time?
Non-synchronized clocks are only a problem if you let them be a problem/make them a problem.
Obviously it is best to avoid dependencies which require synchronization where possible. Unfortunately it isn't always possible.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but most people don't need to encrypt their phone because they have no sensitive data on it. There is always a trade-off between encryption and data integrity, and the latter is way more important for most ordinary use cases. Good voluntary encryption is nice and important for business, but mandatory encryption... why?
Slashdot Mirror
Wealth is "ownership of the means of production", not "standard of living".
Wealth can be anything. Wealth is how much people are worth. People can elect to spend their money any way they want. Most simply hoard it which is the biggest tragedy of all. At least building a super yacht, luxury submarine, floating airship mansion/castle or space station generates employment and contributes to the economy.
Yes, it would be good if wealth were less centralized, but good luck with that idea, no one has ever made that work without complete social collapse.
Good luck getting anyone to believe that one.
However, you don't have a materially lower standard of living because someone else has more wealth.
All of that extraneous money going to the wealthy had to have came from somewhere. Each dollar that sits idle in the collection of the rich has some form of opportunity cost associated with it. The economy suffers and with it everyone's standard of living.
The rich eat less than the poor in the US these days, and while they do have more material
LOL the rich eat babies and several million in the US still go hungry every year.
possessions it's not the middle ages. If the richest 0.1% consume 10x as much goods and services as the average, how much less does the average man have? Do the math.
This is the f****ing problem. It isn't that the rich are rich it is that they are little scrooge bitches who won't even use the money they have.
Provisioning more bandwidth require more natural resources, more time and energy, etc.
New routers don't take more resources to produce than earlier models even though they are vastly more capable, energy efficient and easier to manage. Bandwidth per strand of fiber is increasing at least 100 fold per decade with a healthy R&D pipeline of improvements in the works. Bandwidth availability isn't driven primarily by building more stuff it is driven primarily by continuous innovation funded by the need for more bandwidth and horizontal improvements in supporting technology. Once the engineering is done it is mostly "dead labor" from that point forward.
By that logic, Ferarris aren't scarce either because, if we wanted to, we could divert resources from other (more highly desired) ends and make a virtually limitless supply of Ferraris.
Production of many high end vehicles are intentionally limited to increase value and "exclusivity" which make rich people feel more "special".
I don't mean to cherry pick, just point out that when people are charged for what they use, they economize their uses better and there is less waste.
Given users have no control over efficiency of bandwidth utilization and compressed video transmission dominates Internet traffic "economize" actually means watch less video or reduce quality of said video... This translates into users deriving less value from service. Critically it also translates into less incentive for operators to invest in increased capacity.
Free markets work by encouraging competition. It makes no sense for companies to pay exuberant salaries to U.S. workers when similar results can be had for far less by outsourcing to countries whose citizens expect a standard of living far more meager than Americans. The Prophets promise to trickle upon those who worship at their alters.
Society thrives when wealth is well distributed. "Free markets" are a race to the bottom in slow motion. Eventually everyone who is not rich will be sleeping on dirt floors. You better believe that they are going to be really pissed off about it.
I, I see, redistribution is all well and good when it's someone else's wealth being redistributed, but when your job might go to someone poorer and more in need, well then that's a moral panic!
When I read what parent wrote your response makes no sense. No mention of "redistribution", moral panics or whining about anyone losing their job. This seems to be nothing more than a general statement about the dangers of aggregation of wealth. Something few disagree globalization significantly contributes. Specifically "Eventually everyone who is not rich will be sleeping on dirt floor" seems to make intent quite clear and unambiguous.
If you have a full-time job in the US chances are high you're a "world 1%er". All this outsourcing is very much the wealth of the 1% being redistributed to those in need - just at the whole-world scale. You don't actually have the moral high ground here, just so you know.
What does morality say about 85 people having the same wealth as half the worlds population?
I'm not sure why people have been clinging onto these ideals of "unlimited data."
I think the reason is that people don't want (to be bothered with) limits.
The vast majority of us use a very limited amount of data; why would you want to get lumped into a payment pool to help cover those who use excessive amounts?
If the vast majority of us used the amount of data I use the FCC would still classify broadband as 256k, I would be lucky if my maximum download rate was 1.2 mbit to say nothing of the 120 mbit I have today. DOCSIS 3.0 would not exist and if supporting high bandwidth PHYs did exist at all their costs would be doubly astronomical.
The rest of the world is moving to more finely-grained billing, which helps to more efficiently allocate scarce resources
This is "Malthusian" nonsense. Bandwidth is only as scarce as the will to provision more.
From first hand experience wired ISPs doing usage limits or metering around the world are multiplies of times worse than Comcast. When you have no incentive to build out capacity don't hope against hope ISP monopolies will do so anyway out of the goodness of their hearts.
cloud hosting and car insurance plans come to mind. Yet here we are, begging for a more expensive bill.
Don't make the mistake of cherry picking or using blanket statements about pricing consumption. Each scenario is different and must be considered on the merits.
What is the cost to ship a packet anywhere in the world vs same cost of a metered international call? The absence of metering made the Internet what it is today. Very existence of LCR and Internet hop-offs is evidence of which model is superior and which has utterly failed. Over time costing everything has lead to worse outcomes for everyone because it actively disincentivizes innovation by not forcing down the cost of communication.
For some reason I get very nervous with an out of band remote proprietary management system baked into recent Intel chips, which operates below the OS, and has not been independently audited and reviewed by trusted 3rd parties (such as those not associated with mass surveillance).
What is known isn't good either. All you need is a valid certificate purchasable from any CA in AMTs root list to totally own any system with default configuration if your ever in a position to broadcast DHCP...oh and the computer doesn't even need to be turned on to do it.
It seems that we are now in the age of hardware backdoors.
It can be disabled from bios in some systems and effectively nerf'd in others by disabling I/O virtualization needed to "share" hardware such as your NIC with the operating system.
Maybe AMD which cannot seem to compete with Intel on performance and low-power, can make a niche for itself as a secure (backdoorless) alternative.
These days, I would value my privacy over performance.
It is a good idea to check with vendor to make sure AMT can be disabled before purchasing.
The claim is that while sodium is more efficient per lumen, LEDs put out a directional light and so total lumens used is lower.
Apparently reflectors only work with led lighting.
This is also supposed to make the skies darker.
It precludes the ability to use narrow band filters making things worse for the people who care.
LEDs are also supposed to have a longer life, reducing maintenance costs.
We all know drivers will fail way before the lights themselves do but you still have a point. The question is does the cost of changing light bulbs more often outweigh cost of led lighting on society? In disruption of sleep in humans and animals and blue light related eye damage?
What I find really sad is that sodium lighting invented almost a century ago is still more efficient per output photon than led lighting is currently. Also much easier on the eyes while night driving. I absolutely hate blueish led lights slowly taking over the town. Just because something is "new" does not make it better.
Language belongs to everyone.
If your trying to reward the hard work of your slave labor force with something other than an actual raise or bonus it absolutely is a very good idea to invent an important sounding title with the word "engineer" in it and "promote" them.
If you don't like how the word engineer is thrown around you can either use more words which more specifically qualifies what specifically you intent to say or you can try NSA style to convince everyone the word means something other than what they think it does.
The term "engineer" appears to be sufficiently nebulous having been applied in such a wide range of contexts and domains that it makes no sense to even ask the question. It doesn't matter what myself or any of you think it only matters what society in general thinks.
If you were to answer questions about about your job title with the words "I'm an engineer" do you think the person receiving your words would have any coherent clue what the f*** it is you do or are talking about? No of course not because the word engineer by itself is not sufficient.. It must be further qualified to convey meaning.
CNN unsurprisingly had been running hard with the bomb narrative even before they had any evidence of any kind to support it.
If people in the US government are making the claim a bomb took down flight 9268 then why the hell does this information have to be unofficially leaked to the media with no attribution? Is there no better way to communicate? The same person apparently hedges by saying "there has not been a formal conclusion" and uses weasel words like "definite feeling" ... WTF does that even mean?
The bomb narrative happens to be the most profitable one for both stated US interests against Russia's Syria adventures and CNN's ratings with all assertions carefully constructed such that they get to walk away when they are proven to be wrong.
I have no faith or reason to believe any of this conjecturbation. I'll wait for investigation by the grownups actually doing the work.
That they are even declaring rules for "internet firms" holding customer data and facilitating communications and encryption means we have already failed. The network was intended to be a network of PEERS. Third parties should only be used for discovery they should not be relied upon to facilitate communication. The Internet will not "route around censorship" when the only thing left is a handful of content companies controlling everything.
Don't use third parties to facilitate communication. Communicate directly amoungst yourselves this way both parties to the communication always have a way to decrypt it.
It's not a safe space for them to communicate on a fixed line telephone or a mobile phone, we shouldn't allow the internet to be a safe space for them to communicate and do bad things
Since the dawn of civilization people have communicated in code to obscure their communications from others. This isn't a new phenomenon it is an ancient one. They did it on land line phones, they did it in hand delivered notes, they did it electronically with modems, they do it in the mail, on mobiles, telegraphs, in person. People leave hidden or obvious public messages which are only understandable by intended recipients. You can't prevent use of things like OTP codebooks even if you took everyone's computers away.
The difference is encryption today takes less manual effort to pull off than it has in the past and more people feel compelled to use it if for no other reason than to protect themselves from the hostile environment they find themselves.
I think it is absurd to suggest the police and the security services have a kind of casual desire to intrude on the privacy of the innocent
This is amusing governments grant themselves all kinds of powers to snoop around and spy on their own people then act surprised when nobody believe a damn thing they have to say. Enough people have access to the government codebook to know what the words "terrorist" and "children" really mean.
The biggest problem I see is existence of crap like:
mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr);
Where such code exists you can expect bugs to not be far behind.
What I especially dislike is Linus's proposal:
if (mtu
Hey lets just do the same exact operation twice... now that provides no opportunity for mistakes and BTW nice magic number.
I've learned the hard way over the years when you write a parser to build or consume packets under no circumstance should code to explicitly count bytes like this be allowed to exist. Write or reuse a higher level function to add or consume structures to centralize constraint checking. MUCH less opportunity to screw something up and less code/easier to read in the long run.
The problem is "graphics mini operating system" koolaid drunk by AMD. I just want to run my shit and not be hampered by delusions of grandeur and scope creep of vendors. As a consumer I don't want an operating system I want a driver. Sure as heck won't stand for graphics drivers communicating with Facebook.
For years I made a point of staying away from AMD because their drivers have always sucked/crashed and CCC is a bloated piece of crap. It is good they want to focus on fixing these problems yet all I really want are drivers that work. Social media integration is evidence AMD has no discipline and will continue to annoy people away from its products with unnecessary bullshit.
Surprise! More worthless impractical use cases to justify forcing DSRC surveillance on everyone.
What I am most entertained by are all these arbitrary classifications of who they claim you are not allowed to talk shit about. race, sex, religion out of bounds.....This only leaves fat people, girls with mustaches, 4 eyes, old geezers, fugly peeplz, stupid peeplz, smart people, mean people, smelly people, racist people, gullible people, boring people, poor, rich, upppppies, weaklings, jocks, geeks, prudes, sluts, whores, and stuck up fools...... the reality is everyone is so goddamn tribal and judgmental out their minds...everyone...yes this means you too... The worst by far are paradoxically subhumans like these "dumb fucks" who feel justified working to make the system enforce their views on others by force. That right there is the definition of intolerance.
Sticks and stones bitches... really everyone just needs to get over themselves... freedom isn't free.. tolerance of assholes is required for free societies to be free. If you can't stomach freedom then please
get the fuck out of my country and don't let lady liberty bitch slap you on your ride out. (kidding you can stay but fuck you precious snowflake triggering fucks all of you get a clue, get a job and take a shower)
What I find interest is the play not just to close off remaining piddly avenues for people to challenge misappropriation of private data it is blocking off even avenues for people to discover anything at all with partially redundant FOIA restrictions.
TLSv1 is not insecure regardless of what PCI asserts. There have been a number of implementation flaws having been fixed in various implementations and design flaws that have been effectively worked around. There are no credible attacks for a fully patched and properly configured TLSv1 implementation.
SHA-1 vulnerabilities DO NOT affect sites still using SHA-1 any more than they affect everyone else still willing to accept certs with SHA1.
The reason for this is simple: If I'm an attacker crafting public keys with useful signature collisions I sure as heck will not be wasting my time with one individual site. Instead I will be going after intermediate certificates which offer me the ability to link my own intermediate and impersonate every site on the planet to any browser on the planet still willing to accept SHA1 signatures.
If your browser still accepts SHA-1 your not really any more secure than users of these mil sites.
Right... We did a V2V experiment in 2012 where we measured road friction in corners using the ABS sensors from production vehicles. That was V2V because we announced the maximum safe speed to cars in the neighborhood.
This is worthless in the real world because friction varies by vehicle and path.
That was V2V because we announced the maximum safe speed to cars in the neighborhood. CV won't notice that, and if you're driving too fast for the corner your own sensors will detect the danger only when you're actually on the slippery patch - too late.
Infrared sensors have been demonstrated to detect the presence of ice, snow and water on roadways.
Different protocols have different requirements; especially something as time sensitive as NTP.
DTLS adds no latency over UDP for purpose of time synchronization.
Treating security with a 'one size fits all' approach is never a good idea.
Unless it actually fits then its a great idea.
What you say about driver safety could also be said about surveillance : why use V2X when you have cameras and computing/CV? Sensors and communications can work together, both for safety and for surveillance.
The only communication worth a damn WRT vehicle safety is what actually occurs in the real world. In-vehicle RF transmission is an unnecessary liability in that compelling use cases simply don't exist. It can all be done with sensors that don't depend on the actions of others for proper operation.
For surveillance RF can be passively monitored from great distances with little cost or effort. Yes you can do the same with magnetometers, optical sensors and constellations of spy satellites in low earth orbit. For that matter you could pay people to stand on the corner and record license plate numbers of every car they observe going by. The difference is cost.
It isn't just that RF has no use case and will be used to lower the cost of enmasse surveillance it is also a liability. There is simply no way in hell to secure it. People can't even be bothered to secure ADS-B or AIS which are absolutely trivial relative to V2V. A system of transmitters depending on trust relationships between hundreds of millions of vehicles operated by hundreds of millions of people with physical access whom you have no reason at all to trust sounds like a credible plan.. doesn't it? The concept itself is nonsensical.
You don't need fancy communications networks to do any of the "driver safety" things V2V koolaid drinkers are talking about. They are already being done better and cheaper today in production vehicles with sensors that never have to rely on other vehicles or things equipped with working transmitters.
Technology has already been leap-frogged and made redundant by advances in computing/CV.
"V2X" is now just a massive waste of time and money to enrich industry and serve as yet another ridiculous excuse to eviscerate any remaining rights of individuals not to be stalked en-masse by governments, corporations and individuals. This is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem.
Lawyers, monitoring/ankle bracelets, ignition interlocks, "bail bonds", calling. I talked to someone a few months ago running a prison phone system. The basic gist many jails farm management out to one of a few providers who charge obscene rates and get away with it because those running the prisons don't care and don't want to deal with it. The very same story constantly repeats itself in government purchasing and health care. When its not your money you unsurprisingly tend not to care.
What is more egregious are stories I've heard first hand about ankle bracelets and how companies are able to get judges to basically demand a specific provider be used who unsurprisingly charge insane rates. Buy this or jail == $$$$$$$ profit $$$$$$$$
So design things to not require synced clocks.
What happens when you can't or such a design would be more difficult than a global shared time reference?
It's not like you couldn't include your idea of your local time (whatever it is) in your NFS requests, and then have the server take its idea of its local time, generate a delta, and apply that to all the timestamps that you are trying to set on a file. Or conversely, when you do a stat, the server could include its idea of the local time, the client could use that to generate a delta vs. its own idea of local time, and apply that delta to the time being reported up from the kernel to user space.
What happens when every system can't just stamp their own "idea of local time" on to an event when it occurs? What happens when every systems "idea of local time" changes over time?
Non-synchronized clocks are only a problem if you let them be a problem/make them a problem.
Obviously it is best to avoid dependencies which require synchronization where possible. Unfortunately it isn't always possible.
Once an RFC is adopted by IETF (as the linked RFC is), it becomes a standard. Bro, do you even internet?
Most RFCs are standards only in the minds of their authors.
What a great idea let every protocol invent its own crappy little authentication scheme.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but most people don't need to encrypt their phone because they have no sensitive data on it. There is always a trade-off between encryption and data integrity, and the latter is way more important for most ordinary use cases. Good voluntary encryption is nice and important for business, but mandatory encryption ... why?
From section 9.9
https://static.googleuserconte...
It appears to be required to be enabled by default yet nothing seems to prevent users from disabling it.