It's well known where I stand. I type a lot. I've said this before. I'll say it again.
Vote Sanders, folks. He's the only chance you've got for meaningful change. If he doesn't run as a Democrat, you help him run as an Independent. I'll do what I can but nobody listens to me. I'm used to it. Hell, I should try reverse psychology.
Seriously, I'm a Libertarian. If I'm telling you to vote Sanders then, well... That says something about every single other candidate. I'm not even going to write a *big* novella. If you can't see why Sanders is a good choice for you, I ask you to be honest with yourself. Keep in mind that everything's a system. The better it flows, the better it is for you. Sanders isn't the guy who's gonna roll in and take your guns - he's from Vermont. He's not gonna take your money. If he does, you'll pay less. Seriously - give him a full four years and you'll pay less if Congress works with him. They can both work against him and piss off a generation or they can work with him - they can even do it begrudgingly and keep their current supporters. He's not going to do any harm, he's actually a patriot and a good man. Look where he really stands on the issues and notice that he's been in the right place where it counted. It didn't do him a damned bit of good, but he did what he had to.
He's really all you've got. Nobody else has a chance. I could even stomach a Sandreds/Trump ticket. I shit you not. So long as Bernie doesn't die, Trump will have the time of his life and he'll be harmless. We can send him to North Korea to open up a trade negotiation. Just trust me, it'll be funny as hell. Nobody's gonna shoot Bernie to put Trump in office. I'd really rather not see Trump but I'll take him with Sanders as president (not the other way around). Actually, no... I'll vote for 'em the other way around if they're a third party - just 'cause they won't win and they will get some good numbers and maybe we can get more third party candidates.
Alright, I said I'd not write a long novella. Seriously guys, vote for Bernie. He's all you've got.
I have read (I think) every last one that has been released. I do not recall that. If you scroll up to my first post, you'll see that I provided citations for what I know of - and the citation that Google did *not* do that for Prism but that it was done without their knowledge and not in their location (they intercepted the data as it came out of Google's trunk).* I believe you, but I do not believe that. Not without evidence, at any rate. I've paid pretty careful attention to this since the news first broke.
So, without a citation I'm not really able to add much. I don't know what to say except maybe check your sources? You could be right, I could have missed something. The newspaper citation listed in my first post could be mistaken. I could be mistaken. The other poster could be mistaken. But, I'm gonna need a citation if you want me to believe you. I've just double checked (I happened to look and see you'd just replied - I was gonna close the tab) and I didn't see anything - but I only spent a few minutes looking.
* That has to be one of the strangest sentences that I've ever typed. I'm pretty sure it was intercepted on their line and not in their DC.
I am pretty sure I was physically present (more) for the announcement. I was a guest. I am that confident. So, whatever weight that carries, that's what it is. I can not say with any certainty that it was the wrong source. I would not say that certain to be the right source. I have zero way to prove that to you and I will not make the claim with any certainty nor give any appreciable input other than that. In fact, you can stop reading here.
But, I'm pretty certain. I know the people who were there. It was us, screaming at our leads, in the MVP program, that got the source opened up - and not the crazy guys with beards and spittle. You can see how it started...
You? You gotta sign shit and become a partner, or find another license to get into - they have a bunch there, OEM works for anyone. That's free, it's how you get to the NDA Just sign up as a partner, apply as an OEM. They'll give it to you as a system builder. You know how to build a computer? Congratulations, you're a registered parter with Microsoft and you're an OEM. Now, you can access it too! You gotta sign the NDA and that's about it, I think? I got it a slightly different way, I went through the MVP program and I'm assured they're the same thing. Unless you're an MVP, you have to do it the OEM way as a partner. It's free.
(Click on OEM thingy and get started. I gotta mention this part again --> You gotta be a Partner to do that, it should help you get it set up.)
In there are directions to get the source code. Follow 'em. You gotta request one thing at a time, pretty much. You ask for specific code. They're not just going to send you all of Windows 7 just for shits and giggles. Just make something up and ask for it in small pieces? Eventually they'll tell you now? I don't know, they've never told me no. I haven't asked for anything in a *long* time. (It has been available for a long time. It's not open source - but you can see it. You can't do much else. You can see it.)
I have no reason to doubt the code, I want to say that I was in the room when it was announced. I'm actually not sure if it was there or in an email/mailing list. There were reporters. I think we might have heard about it the night before and it was announced at a press conference on Sunday? Maybe Friday night? I am not actually sure - it was 15 years ago. Sorry but my memory is not that good. It might have been one of those days, the weekend before, the same weekend? I'm not really positive - it has been a long time. (That was the more.)
The funny thing, if you go back through my comments, I bet I've mentioned this program 100 times. LOL I'm not kidding. I've had people thanking me for telling them about it for years. I have no idea if any of them followed through. I am not kidding, I've probably pointed this out 100 times on Slashdot. Hell, I get moderated up for at least half of 'em. Someone's seeing it but almost every time I say something - someone new notices. So, I keep repeating. I have no idea if they follow up with ti, nothing. They say thanks. I looked and poked at it a couple of times back then.
That's the whole story and I do not have a vote of confidence to give you. I have no reason to distrust the code. There's everything I know. In a matter this serious, I can not nor would I accept accountability for an affirmative or negative answer about the certainty. I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, you will be signing legally binding documents if you go through this process. Consult with a legal professional in your local jurisdiction prior to signing any legal documents.
That'll have to do.;-) Sorry but that was ages ago and I went through it the MVP way, they opened at the same time. We were annoying, John was our lead, I remember that. I gave up partici
I did not. As I recall, the agreement says you don't get to do much of anything except look at it. You don't get their tool-chain, you don't get everything, you only get what you ask for, and things like that. You can't edit it, share it, or even take a screen-shot of it. So, no... I did not compile it. It has also been ages since I've even asked for any but, in their defense, they gave me all that I asked for with even an absurd excuse a couple of times. I did want some OE code at one point (that's how long ago this was) as I wanted to write some code against it - formatting replies automatically and whatnot. That's the closest I ever really got to working with it. The rest was just me being nosy, curious, and borderline seeing how far I could push it. They really did send it out with the excuse, "Because I'm curious." Credit where credit is due, I guess? I was still a part of the MS MVP program at the time.
Yeah, I've a whole "server room" in my basement at home - complete with racks. I provision space for my friends and they do the same for me though I provide my own equipment at their homes as well as have it set up for them so that they can just let it run and verify on their own. I have a garage that's close to the house and there's a monthly storage in there. Then, I have the house that was here on the property when I bought it and there's storage in there - that also has connected media so I can push remote stuff there - it has it's own disparate connection to the 'net and runs a "seed box" that is more akin to a small cluster.
I lost data once. Never again. Ever, ever, ever... I will not lose data again, at least not any meaningful data. I already don't store much data locally on the system I'm working on. It's all pushed out to storage that syncs automatically into disparate locations which will then push it out at varied intervals and cycle things or do incremental back ups. There's physically attached devices that get replication in case of drive failure. I don't use *any* RAID but disparate disks - I'll buy more of them if I gotta. I will not lose data again. I'm pretty anal about it except, well... I'm kind of lazy so I automated the hell out of it. 'Snot like I'm going to remember to do it manually.
I had a strange lightning event, very close to the house, years and years ago when I lived in NC. It split a tree that was hanging over the glassed/screened in porch and the gear was mostly in that area. Yet, every single bit of magnetic storage, even that which wasn't plugged in, was erased - some ruined. Even the MBR was gone. Floppies (those old things) and Zip disks were erased. Hard drives that weren't plugged in were erased. Two powered-on HDDs died completely as did one that wasn't plugged in. One wasn't "dead" but made a clicking noise like the Zip click-of-death and SMART indicated it would be failing soon. I had, by sheer luck, some of my stuff at the office. I lost things that were from the 1980s that I'd carefully kept moving but never once bothered to put in a separate location. Fortunately, some was at the office just waiting for me to bring it *back home.* Yeah...
Needless to say, we also ended up with a whole new backup process at work as well. I had a new backup plan running in a week and then spent about another month formalizing it. We'd had backup and remote backup but we ended up with a secondary, off site, and then used an archival service and multiple forms of media.
It'll be 60 years from now and I'll be on the list to buy a Tesla come June. What I don't need, is affirmation. What I don't need is conjecture. What I don't need, is to try to make my choice seem like it's the right one because I'm uncertain. If you feel you're a leader for picking an EV now, you're over 100 years too late. No, really, you're over 100 years too late.
I should probably tell you that I'm quite an automotive enthusiast and actually own enough cars to call it a "stable." In fact, I've shared pics here before. I literally own a whole collection of automobiles and some of them are worth not a whole hell of a lot, comparatively, to anyone but me. There's nothing wrong with buying an EV or a hybrid. Not at all. If you need affirmation for that then, well, you're really not a trend setter and should probably have just bought what made you happy instead of trying to win something with your ownership. Remember, you're unique, just like everybody else.
But hey, it's your story, you can tell it any way you want to.;-)
That's kind of what I hope will happen but - that's gotta be *really* damned fast. I don't know if you've ever seen how fast the valves open and close but you can (for a short time) actually run and rev an engine like that. We can already do quite a bit with simply shutting a cylinder down. We've got that pretty well figured out but there's still a bit of compression loss there. How much more is there to be gained? They're saying 30% (someone was) and I'm saying I'm gonna need to see some numbers with that - not theoretical but actual. We can already cut an 8 to 4 and some even to 2.
I suspect there's a reason that it hasn't been done - and that this person really isn't smarter than the automotive engineers who are really good at eking out the last bit of efficiency. There's gotta be a reason. I'll be home in the spring and I can actually dig into some real, dead-tree, books. I've got some advanced engine design books that get into things like this. I've got spec and data sheets and can even dig into some data that's been "passed along" concerning prototype engines. I'm really a bit curious, I just don't have access at this moment and won't until spring.:/
You don't drive a stick, do you? If you do, you don't do it well? Nah, there's all sorts of things to do with higher RPMs, including engine-braking. Engine braking is useful where you have hills and don't want to use the brakes, you drop it in 4th and it keeps your speed effectively limited by use of engine-braking. Trucks use it a lot. It's when they make a huge, very loud, noise - they call it "jake brake." If you were recovering energy at that point, it'd probably be ideal.
It's true that that's a good assumption to make but there's no real way to know if they had anything with a greater complexity than simply encrypting via remote. I've actually seen/read some of the malware that is out there - it was actually up on GitHub and at PasteBin. I can't actually say, for certain, what it was but it is pretty simple. It's not nearly as complicated as one might think - and it doesn't actually do anything more then just encrypt.
Basically, the two samples that I've seen did this:
Get attached to something - it rides in via a trojan or an exploit in a browser or something like that. It sends back a report to a C&C server. It checks for attached shares, drives, attached devices. It sends back a report to the C&C - it is not a RAT or anything like that. (Usually a compromised server, seems to be a PHP page.) As near as I can tell - I've not seen the C&C itself, it then lets them send a command when they want and not much else - it just lays dormant. It will keep sending reports to let you know if it's found new connected devices and it continues to wait. They encrypt it (I guess they could wait) and it generates a key and assigns that device/devices/hack a number. I don't know what they do with the key - I assume they save it along with the number. This locks the computer pretty much - I think they can kind of select which things they'll encrypt but it doesn't look all that refined. It doesn't look like they can even wildcard, they can do whole folders and not, say, *.doc or whatnot. They can then send a message that will appear on the screen that includes directions on how to get the key. One of them appears to be able to decrypt from remote? I'm not sure if they have a system to store the key at the C&C and point & click. They can include other comments, like contact details or whatnot - I assume they do as the hospital was able to communicate with them. That's about it.
So, unless it's packaged with other things, that's all I've seen. I'm sure it can be daisy-chained. It just looks like they package it up with exploits or attach it to executables, or things like that. I imagine they can do some tweaking with it? I imagine they can spear-phish and whatnot. It doesn't look as complicated as we might think. It doesn't do *anything* other than that - in the cases that I've seen.** There's no magic sauce, no real control, it doesn't afford any way to exfiltrate the data, no method to be really all that specific about what they attack, and they can't really encrypt everything or the user would have no control of the OS at all as it wouldn't even boot.
** It should be clear that I'm not a programmer. I have done some programming, quite a bit of it. Just not in a long time and I'm not that good. But, if it did more than that, I did not see it in the code. It's really very basic. I have not seen the C&C server but it connects to a PHP file and you simply change that to your own server - I'm assuming they use compromised servers and just keep it hidden in some dusty old folder that the admin is unlikely to notice. There's no reason it couldn't be attached to something else but, by itself, that's all it appears to do.
Hate to say it but I agree with their choice. They got off *cheap.* I mean, dirt cheap. That's absurdly cheap and a good thing for them. I wonder how long it took for the bad guys to realize they'd scored a hospital network? Unless it was spear-phishing, they probably had no idea what they'd netted at first. I have to wonder if they realized the scale, the size and scope, of what they'd netted, asked for the original amount thinking it might be something other than what it was, and then asked for the original amount - without knowing there'd be this much publicity.
That they went down in asking price indicates that they changed their mind. That tells me that it kind of likely that something changed mid-way through. Perhaps they'd not planned on this, something with that much publicity, something with that much backlash? If that's the case, I could see them lowering the ransom, perhaps with some kind of immunity deal - where the police won't look for them too hard? Because, let's face it, if they held out for the total and it hadn't been paid or if it hadn't been decrypted when paid, they'd have *really* pissed off some people and sometimes the American populace goes a little batshit crazy with their revenge.
So, I wonder if they bit off something bigger than intended, threw the number out, found out it was a hospital, got offered a "deal" with less of a man-hunt and lower pay, and agreed to it lest they wake up dead after visit from a couple of angry guys in black make-up and oddly carrying an inflatable boat with them. I realize that seems a bit conspiratorial but I don't think it's that far fetched.
Are you not familiar with their posts? In my effort to be polite, I'll say this; They make some very strong claims from time to time and do not generally provide citations. However...
It is known, not really conjectured, that Google did, in fact, cooperate with the NSA on at least one occasion. As near as I can recall, there's at least one instance where they did so and I've gone ahead and found a link.
Now, do not read into that what I did not say. It's important to note *how* and *why* Google assisted and cooperated with the NSA - at least in that one particular instance. If you don't want to read the link, basically some server in China was attacking Google and their users. Google traced 'em, shared the data with the NSA, and gave them technical assistance (probably).
So, you can say that Google has cooperated with the NSA and be completely factual. Except, it's not as it seems. I suspect that's the case here - and he may not even be doing it intentionally and not have actually read the story.
I've heard other accusations and traced them down - they're often just conjecture. I've read quite a bit of the Snowden stuff and, if I recall correctly, you're recounting it well enough. The NSA was grabbing the data without Google's consent or aid - so far as I know. In fact, seeing as I'm providing citations, let me find an article for that....
In that article (and all the others that I know of that are generally factual) it points out that the NSA was *secretly* doing so - that means that Google was not aiding them. However, if you squint just enough (and never bother to ask for citations) then you can *factually* claim that Google has cooperated with the NSA. They have. Err... It's just that it was probably the right thing to do at the time.
To install a new OS patch you have to have the pin.
That's not necessarily true, is it? Isn't only a portion of the data encrypted? Meaning, the user's data? For example, on Linux, it would be the/home folder that one might have encrypted instead of encrypting the everything. So, if the rest isn't encrypted, couldn't they just pop the memory, read it, find the appropriate sectors, and slap a new firmware on it - then return it to the device, power it on, and have at it?
Err... I reread that and I'm not sure I can articulate that more clearly. Sorry but hopefully it makes sense. I am not, by any means, an expert but it seems that might be a viable solution. I'm sure they understand the file system and how data is stored. If they encrypt the OS then it's a computational overhead that would slow the device down - so it seems unlikely that they'd encrypt it, but it might be. If it's an entirely separate firmware then that may not work but, again, there's computational overhead that would be a bit of a performance hit, did they make that choice? Buggered if I know - I've mostly just been pondering how I'd consider going about it if it were up to me and I actually knew what I was doing. (It is not and I do not.)
Even if they had to manually peel back layers and read with a big ol' microscope, they might just be able to do it - at great expense, risk, and duration.
It was, indeed, a royal you. However, I'd like to point out the title of this thread and the subject of this thread.
No, Microsoft is not now going up against the wall. No, nobody's moving to Linux and staying there - not of any note, there's a few new users that stick it out. As I'm not a gamer, I don't really know what compels people to like games enough to stick with an OS they profess to hate.
This is not Windows up against the wall, fire, blah blah blah... This is the DoD installing Windows on 4 million machines - the exact opposite of what you're claiming.
The probability of an individual human being killed by an asteroid is so close to near zero that I can't even begin to calculate it. I'm well aware of the math, or I'd have not asked the question. I know how the current theory about the dinosaur extinction works. I know how the probabilities work. I know the estimates for NEO and the time-frames associated with them.
Now, provide a citation - that has the math, that shows the probability for an individual is higher than the other risks. Or stop spreading FUD. Facts are better than fear. Unfounded claims are FUD. If you're right then you should be able to show me the math. I do not see the math. I have not yet seen the math. I even went looking for the math - I found nothing even remotely close to the claim. If you absolutely need me to, and pay me for my time, I will do the math for you.
I didn't click your link but it's kind of odd that it's pointing to YouTube and you're saying that they're silencing anyone exercising their free speech. Umm... That does't strike you as odd?
The minute they do that, they lose their safe harbor protections - according to my understanding of the law. They can't really protect their users without actually accepting a whole lot of accountability.
Law doesn't really have fuck all to do with it - except in the cases of actual infringement and leaving the content up. When it comes to removing content, Google (YouTube) can take down any damned video they want to take down and there's not much to do about it if you want to use YouTube. They can, if they want, take down your video because Sony sent them a picture of a cat with a party hat and said that your mom's a nice lady. They can take down Sony's video because you wrote them a haiku. They can take down your video because they don't like your hair color and think you're ugly.
So, when it comes to removing content, the law's not got much to do with it. (It does if they leave the content up.)
And yes, if they let me be boss of YouTube for a day, I'd take down all sorts of random videos with snarky comments - possibly some of them from Sony themselves. I'd give (what I felt were) amusing reasons that sounded like they came from a five year old. "Sony has cooties!" "I'm not touching you!" "Did too!" And I'd like it.
That's probably because I am just a big five year old. It's also probably why they won't let me be the boss of YouTube for a day.
That sounds good and all. I admit - I only gave it about five minutes of thought. I guess that's more than most of us give one of our replies, so that's that.
But, well... It just sounds good. What's it actually going to mean? What good will that do? When you see, XYZ Holdings Inc as the record of who submitted it, what are you gonna do about it? Make a mental note and then do, what?
No, he's just seeking affirmation of his choice to purchase an EV while ignoring that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are actually in use today. He was blithering about it above and spouting nonsense there too. They're the kind of people who will absolutely refuse to acknowledge facts. It's not really their fault. It's brain damage from having a poor self-image. They're mentally ill and need affirmation from others to make themselves feel better. You see it when people will insist they use the one and only true OS, the best browser, the only IDE worth having, the best phone, etc. It's not even remotely uncommon but it's certainly a mental illness.
Slashdot Mirror
It's well known where I stand. I type a lot. I've said this before. I'll say it again.
Vote Sanders, folks. He's the only chance you've got for meaningful change. If he doesn't run as a Democrat, you help him run as an Independent. I'll do what I can but nobody listens to me. I'm used to it. Hell, I should try reverse psychology.
Seriously, I'm a Libertarian. If I'm telling you to vote Sanders then, well... That says something about every single other candidate. I'm not even going to write a *big* novella. If you can't see why Sanders is a good choice for you, I ask you to be honest with yourself. Keep in mind that everything's a system. The better it flows, the better it is for you. Sanders isn't the guy who's gonna roll in and take your guns - he's from Vermont. He's not gonna take your money. If he does, you'll pay less. Seriously - give him a full four years and you'll pay less if Congress works with him. They can both work against him and piss off a generation or they can work with him - they can even do it begrudgingly and keep their current supporters. He's not going to do any harm, he's actually a patriot and a good man. Look where he really stands on the issues and notice that he's been in the right place where it counted. It didn't do him a damned bit of good, but he did what he had to.
He's really all you've got. Nobody else has a chance. I could even stomach a Sandreds/Trump ticket. I shit you not. So long as Bernie doesn't die, Trump will have the time of his life and he'll be harmless. We can send him to North Korea to open up a trade negotiation. Just trust me, it'll be funny as hell. Nobody's gonna shoot Bernie to put Trump in office. I'd really rather not see Trump but I'll take him with Sanders as president (not the other way around). Actually, no... I'll vote for 'em the other way around if they're a third party - just 'cause they won't win and they will get some good numbers and maybe we can get more third party candidates.
Alright, I said I'd not write a long novella. Seriously guys, vote for Bernie. He's all you've got.
I have read (I think) every last one that has been released. I do not recall that. If you scroll up to my first post, you'll see that I provided citations for what I know of - and the citation that Google did *not* do that for Prism but that it was done without their knowledge and not in their location (they intercepted the data as it came out of Google's trunk).* I believe you, but I do not believe that. Not without evidence, at any rate. I've paid pretty careful attention to this since the news first broke.
So, without a citation I'm not really able to add much. I don't know what to say except maybe check your sources? You could be right, I could have missed something. The newspaper citation listed in my first post could be mistaken. I could be mistaken. The other poster could be mistaken. But, I'm gonna need a citation if you want me to believe you. I've just double checked (I happened to look and see you'd just replied - I was gonna close the tab) and I didn't see anything - but I only spent a few minutes looking.
* That has to be one of the strangest sentences that I've ever typed. I'm pretty sure it was intercepted on their line and not in their DC.
I am pretty sure I was physically present (more) for the announcement. I was a guest. I am that confident. So, whatever weight that carries, that's what it is. I can not say with any certainty that it was the wrong source. I would not say that certain to be the right source. I have zero way to prove that to you and I will not make the claim with any certainty nor give any appreciable input other than that. In fact, you can stop reading here.
But, I'm pretty certain. I know the people who were there. It was us, screaming at our leads, in the MVP program, that got the source opened up - and not the crazy guys with beards and spittle. You can see how it started...
https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...
You? You gotta sign shit and become a partner, or find another license to get into - they have a bunch there, OEM works for anyone. That's free, it's how you get to the NDA Just sign up as a partner, apply as an OEM. They'll give it to you as a system builder. You know how to build a computer? Congratulations, you're a registered parter with Microsoft and you're an OEM. Now, you can access it too! You gotta sign the NDA and that's about it, I think? I got it a slightly different way, I went through the MVP program and I'm assured they're the same thing. Unless you're an MVP, you have to do it the OEM way as a partner. It's free.
That's here:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...
(Click on OEM thingy and get started. I gotta mention this part again --> You gotta be a Partner to do that, it should help you get it set up.)
In there are directions to get the source code. Follow 'em. You gotta request one thing at a time, pretty much. You ask for specific code. They're not just going to send you all of Windows 7 just for shits and giggles. Just make something up and ask for it in small pieces? Eventually they'll tell you now? I don't know, they've never told me no. I haven't asked for anything in a *long* time. (It has been available for a long time. It's not open source - but you can see it. You can't do much else. You can see it.)
I have no reason to doubt the code, I want to say that I was in the room when it was announced. I'm actually not sure if it was there or in an email/mailing list. There were reporters. I think we might have heard about it the night before and it was announced at a press conference on Sunday? Maybe Friday night? I am not actually sure - it was 15 years ago. Sorry but my memory is not that good. It might have been one of those days, the weekend before, the same weekend? I'm not really positive - it has been a long time. (That was the more.)
The funny thing, if you go back through my comments, I bet I've mentioned this program 100 times. LOL I'm not kidding. I've had people thanking me for telling them about it for years. I have no idea if any of them followed through. I am not kidding, I've probably pointed this out 100 times on Slashdot. Hell, I get moderated up for at least half of 'em. Someone's seeing it but almost every time I say something - someone new notices. So, I keep repeating. I have no idea if they follow up with ti, nothing. They say thanks. I looked and poked at it a couple of times back then.
That's the whole story and I do not have a vote of confidence to give you. I have no reason to distrust the code. There's everything I know. In a matter this serious, I can not nor would I accept accountability for an affirmative or negative answer about the certainty. I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, you will be signing legally binding documents if you go through this process. Consult with a legal professional in your local jurisdiction prior to signing any legal documents.
That'll have to do. ;-) Sorry but that was ages ago and I went through it the MVP way, they opened at the same time. We were annoying, John was our lead, I remember that. I gave up partici
I did not. As I recall, the agreement says you don't get to do much of anything except look at it. You don't get their tool-chain, you don't get everything, you only get what you ask for, and things like that. You can't edit it, share it, or even take a screen-shot of it. So, no... I did not compile it. It has also been ages since I've even asked for any but, in their defense, they gave me all that I asked for with even an absurd excuse a couple of times. I did want some OE code at one point (that's how long ago this was) as I wanted to write some code against it - formatting replies automatically and whatnot. That's the closest I ever really got to working with it. The rest was just me being nosy, curious, and borderline seeing how far I could push it. They really did send it out with the excuse, "Because I'm curious." Credit where credit is due, I guess? I was still a part of the MS MVP program at the time.
Yeah, I've a whole "server room" in my basement at home - complete with racks. I provision space for my friends and they do the same for me though I provide my own equipment at their homes as well as have it set up for them so that they can just let it run and verify on their own. I have a garage that's close to the house and there's a monthly storage in there. Then, I have the house that was here on the property when I bought it and there's storage in there - that also has connected media so I can push remote stuff there - it has it's own disparate connection to the 'net and runs a "seed box" that is more akin to a small cluster.
I lost data once. Never again. Ever, ever, ever... I will not lose data again, at least not any meaningful data. I already don't store much data locally on the system I'm working on. It's all pushed out to storage that syncs automatically into disparate locations which will then push it out at varied intervals and cycle things or do incremental back ups. There's physically attached devices that get replication in case of drive failure. I don't use *any* RAID but disparate disks - I'll buy more of them if I gotta. I will not lose data again. I'm pretty anal about it except, well... I'm kind of lazy so I automated the hell out of it. 'Snot like I'm going to remember to do it manually.
I had a strange lightning event, very close to the house, years and years ago when I lived in NC. It split a tree that was hanging over the glassed/screened in porch and the gear was mostly in that area. Yet, every single bit of magnetic storage, even that which wasn't plugged in, was erased - some ruined. Even the MBR was gone. Floppies (those old things) and Zip disks were erased. Hard drives that weren't plugged in were erased. Two powered-on HDDs died completely as did one that wasn't plugged in. One wasn't "dead" but made a clicking noise like the Zip click-of-death and SMART indicated it would be failing soon. I had, by sheer luck, some of my stuff at the office. I lost things that were from the 1980s that I'd carefully kept moving but never once bothered to put in a separate location. Fortunately, some was at the office just waiting for me to bring it *back home.* Yeah...
Needless to say, we also ended up with a whole new backup process at work as well. I had a new backup plan running in a week and then spent about another month formalizing it. We'd had backup and remote backup but we ended up with a secondary, off site, and then used an archival service and multiple forms of media.
Never again.
It'll be 60 years from now and I'll be on the list to buy a Tesla come June. What I don't need, is affirmation. What I don't need is conjecture. What I don't need, is to try to make my choice seem like it's the right one because I'm uncertain. If you feel you're a leader for picking an EV now, you're over 100 years too late. No, really, you're over 100 years too late.
I should probably tell you that I'm quite an automotive enthusiast and actually own enough cars to call it a "stable." In fact, I've shared pics here before. I literally own a whole collection of automobiles and some of them are worth not a whole hell of a lot, comparatively, to anyone but me. There's nothing wrong with buying an EV or a hybrid. Not at all. If you need affirmation for that then, well, you're really not a trend setter and should probably have just bought what made you happy instead of trying to win something with your ownership. Remember, you're unique, just like everybody else.
But hey, it's your story, you can tell it any way you want to. ;-)
That's kind of what I hope will happen but - that's gotta be *really* damned fast. I don't know if you've ever seen how fast the valves open and close but you can (for a short time) actually run and rev an engine like that. We can already do quite a bit with simply shutting a cylinder down. We've got that pretty well figured out but there's still a bit of compression loss there. How much more is there to be gained? They're saying 30% (someone was) and I'm saying I'm gonna need to see some numbers with that - not theoretical but actual. We can already cut an 8 to 4 and some even to 2.
I suspect there's a reason that it hasn't been done - and that this person really isn't smarter than the automotive engineers who are really good at eking out the last bit of efficiency. There's gotta be a reason. I'll be home in the spring and I can actually dig into some real, dead-tree, books. I've got some advanced engine design books that get into things like this. I've got spec and data sheets and can even dig into some data that's been "passed along" concerning prototype engines. I'm really a bit curious, I just don't have access at this moment and won't until spring. :/
You don't drive a stick, do you? If you do, you don't do it well? Nah, there's all sorts of things to do with higher RPMs, including engine-braking. Engine braking is useful where you have hills and don't want to use the brakes, you drop it in 4th and it keeps your speed effectively limited by use of engine-braking. Trucks use it a lot. It's when they make a huge, very loud, noise - they call it "jake brake." If you were recovering energy at that point, it'd probably be ideal.
It's true that that's a good assumption to make but there's no real way to know if they had anything with a greater complexity than simply encrypting via remote. I've actually seen/read some of the malware that is out there - it was actually up on GitHub and at PasteBin. I can't actually say, for certain, what it was but it is pretty simple. It's not nearly as complicated as one might think - and it doesn't actually do anything more then just encrypt.
Basically, the two samples that I've seen did this:
Get attached to something - it rides in via a trojan or an exploit in a browser or something like that.
It sends back a report to a C&C server.
It checks for attached shares, drives, attached devices.
It sends back a report to the C&C - it is not a RAT or anything like that. (Usually a compromised server, seems to be a PHP page.)
As near as I can tell - I've not seen the C&C itself, it then lets them send a command when they want and not much else - it just lays dormant.
It will keep sending reports to let you know if it's found new connected devices and it continues to wait.
They encrypt it (I guess they could wait) and it generates a key and assigns that device/devices/hack a number.
I don't know what they do with the key - I assume they save it along with the number.
This locks the computer pretty much - I think they can kind of select which things they'll encrypt but it doesn't look all that refined.
It doesn't look like they can even wildcard, they can do whole folders and not, say, *.doc or whatnot.
They can then send a message that will appear on the screen that includes directions on how to get the key.
One of them appears to be able to decrypt from remote? I'm not sure if they have a system to store the key at the C&C and point & click.
They can include other comments, like contact details or whatnot - I assume they do as the hospital was able to communicate with them.
That's about it.
So, unless it's packaged with other things, that's all I've seen. I'm sure it can be daisy-chained. It just looks like they package it up with exploits or attach it to executables, or things like that. I imagine they can do some tweaking with it? I imagine they can spear-phish and whatnot. It doesn't look as complicated as we might think. It doesn't do *anything* other than that - in the cases that I've seen.** There's no magic sauce, no real control, it doesn't afford any way to exfiltrate the data, no method to be really all that specific about what they attack, and they can't really encrypt everything or the user would have no control of the OS at all as it wouldn't even boot.
** It should be clear that I'm not a programmer. I have done some programming, quite a bit of it. Just not in a long time and I'm not that good. But, if it did more than that, I did not see it in the code. It's really very basic. I have not seen the C&C server but it connects to a PHP file and you simply change that to your own server - I'm assuming they use compromised servers and just keep it hidden in some dusty old folder that the admin is unlikely to notice. There's no reason it couldn't be attached to something else but, by itself, that's all it appears to do.
Hate to say it but I agree with their choice. They got off *cheap.* I mean, dirt cheap. That's absurdly cheap and a good thing for them. I wonder how long it took for the bad guys to realize they'd scored a hospital network? Unless it was spear-phishing, they probably had no idea what they'd netted at first. I have to wonder if they realized the scale, the size and scope, of what they'd netted, asked for the original amount thinking it might be something other than what it was, and then asked for the original amount - without knowing there'd be this much publicity.
That they went down in asking price indicates that they changed their mind. That tells me that it kind of likely that something changed mid-way through. Perhaps they'd not planned on this, something with that much publicity, something with that much backlash? If that's the case, I could see them lowering the ransom, perhaps with some kind of immunity deal - where the police won't look for them too hard? Because, let's face it, if they held out for the total and it hadn't been paid or if it hadn't been decrypted when paid, they'd have *really* pissed off some people and sometimes the American populace goes a little batshit crazy with their revenge.
So, I wonder if they bit off something bigger than intended, threw the number out, found out it was a hospital, got offered a "deal" with less of a man-hunt and lower pay, and agreed to it lest they wake up dead after visit from a couple of angry guys in black make-up and oddly carrying an inflatable boat with them. I realize that seems a bit conspiratorial but I don't think it's that far fetched.
Are you not familiar with their posts? In my effort to be polite, I'll say this; They make some very strong claims from time to time and do not generally provide citations. However...
It is known, not really conjectured, that Google did, in fact, cooperate with the NSA on at least one occasion. As near as I can recall, there's at least one instance where they did so and I've gone ahead and found a link.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/1...
Now, do not read into that what I did not say. It's important to note *how* and *why* Google assisted and cooperated with the NSA - at least in that one particular instance. If you don't want to read the link, basically some server in China was attacking Google and their users. Google traced 'em, shared the data with the NSA, and gave them technical assistance (probably).
So, you can say that Google has cooperated with the NSA and be completely factual. Except, it's not as it seems. I suspect that's the case here - and he may not even be doing it intentionally and not have actually read the story.
I've heard other accusations and traced them down - they're often just conjecture. I've read quite a bit of the Snowden stuff and, if I recall correctly, you're recounting it well enough. The NSA was grabbing the data without Google's consent or aid - so far as I know. In fact, seeing as I'm providing citations, let me find an article for that....
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
In that article (and all the others that I know of that are generally factual) it points out that the NSA was *secretly* doing so - that means that Google was not aiding them. However, if you squint just enough (and never bother to ask for citations) then you can *factually* claim that Google has cooperated with the NSA. They have. Err... It's just that it was probably the right thing to do at the time.
Is it? How about if they have a lawful, just, warrant?
To install a new OS patch you have to have the pin.
That's not necessarily true, is it? Isn't only a portion of the data encrypted? Meaning, the user's data? For example, on Linux, it would be the /home folder that one might have encrypted instead of encrypting the everything. So, if the rest isn't encrypted, couldn't they just pop the memory, read it, find the appropriate sectors, and slap a new firmware on it - then return it to the device, power it on, and have at it?
Err... I reread that and I'm not sure I can articulate that more clearly. Sorry but hopefully it makes sense. I am not, by any means, an expert but it seems that might be a viable solution. I'm sure they understand the file system and how data is stored. If they encrypt the OS then it's a computational overhead that would slow the device down - so it seems unlikely that they'd encrypt it, but it might be. If it's an entirely separate firmware then that may not work but, again, there's computational overhead that would be a bit of a performance hit, did they make that choice? Buggered if I know - I've mostly just been pondering how I'd consider going about it if it were up to me and I actually knew what I was doing. (It is not and I do not.)
Even if they had to manually peel back layers and read with a big ol' microscope, they might just be able to do it - at great expense, risk, and duration.
No. Now stop being a dick.
It was, indeed, a royal you. However, I'd like to point out the title of this thread and the subject of this thread.
No, Microsoft is not now going up against the wall. No, nobody's moving to Linux and staying there - not of any note, there's a few new users that stick it out. As I'm not a gamer, I don't really know what compels people to like games enough to stick with an OS they profess to hate.
This is not Windows up against the wall, fire, blah blah blah... This is the DoD installing Windows on 4 million machines - the exact opposite of what you're claiming.
Point of order...
That's how they *kept* it. Not how they made it.
We've got much bigger parking lots and a lot less diversity in cars now. That and we're old, did a lot of drugs, and can't remember shit.
The probability of an individual human being killed by an asteroid is so close to near zero that I can't even begin to calculate it. I'm well aware of the math, or I'd have not asked the question. I know how the current theory about the dinosaur extinction works. I know how the probabilities work. I know the estimates for NEO and the time-frames associated with them.
Now, provide a citation - that has the math, that shows the probability for an individual is higher than the other risks. Or stop spreading FUD. Facts are better than fear. Unfounded claims are FUD. If you're right then you should be able to show me the math. I do not see the math. I have not yet seen the math. I even went looking for the math - I found nothing even remotely close to the claim. If you absolutely need me to, and pay me for my time, I will do the math for you.
I didn't click your link but it's kind of odd that it's pointing to YouTube and you're saying that they're silencing anyone exercising their free speech. Umm... That does't strike you as odd?
The minute they do that, they lose their safe harbor protections - according to my understanding of the law. They can't really protect their users without actually accepting a whole lot of accountability.
Or even the ACLU.
Law doesn't really have fuck all to do with it - except in the cases of actual infringement and leaving the content up. When it comes to removing content, Google (YouTube) can take down any damned video they want to take down and there's not much to do about it if you want to use YouTube. They can, if they want, take down your video because Sony sent them a picture of a cat with a party hat and said that your mom's a nice lady. They can take down Sony's video because you wrote them a haiku. They can take down your video because they don't like your hair color and think you're ugly.
So, when it comes to removing content, the law's not got much to do with it. (It does if they leave the content up.)
And yes, if they let me be boss of YouTube for a day, I'd take down all sorts of random videos with snarky comments - possibly some of them from Sony themselves. I'd give (what I felt were) amusing reasons that sounded like they came from a five year old. "Sony has cooties!" "I'm not touching you!" "Did too!" And I'd like it.
That's probably because I am just a big five year old. It's also probably why they won't let me be the boss of YouTube for a day.
That sounds good and all. I admit - I only gave it about five minutes of thought. I guess that's more than most of us give one of our replies, so that's that.
But, well... It just sounds good. What's it actually going to mean? What good will that do? When you see, XYZ Holdings Inc as the record of who submitted it, what are you gonna do about it? Make a mental note and then do, what?
That's great! Now, why are you telling me that? Read the post I replied to, read my post, and then please explain why you think I don't know that.
No, he's just seeking affirmation of his choice to purchase an EV while ignoring that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are actually in use today. He was blithering about it above and spouting nonsense there too. They're the kind of people who will absolutely refuse to acknowledge facts. It's not really their fault. It's brain damage from having a poor self-image. They're mentally ill and need affirmation from others to make themselves feel better. You see it when people will insist they use the one and only true OS, the best browser, the only IDE worth having, the best phone, etc. It's not even remotely uncommon but it's certainly a mental illness.