You are correct! No matter what it is that is causing the observed effects that is *dark matter.* There are many competing theories as to what dark matter is, some of them are outlandish. However, even if it turns out that the effects observed are caused by purple unicorn farts, the purple unicorn farts are dark matter.
I had an excellent conversation with a Slashdotter about this, just a few days ago, and I've concluded that I hate the name as much as I hate The God Particle. I can think of no other reason why people are so unwilling to understand. It's really quite simple. It is simple enough for *me* to understand it. Something is causing an effect. No matter what that is, whatever it turns out to be that is causing that effect, it is dark matter.
I know, I was even given some sort-of-thanks, that I explained this quite clearly in the thread that was active just this week. I even explained it multiple times and had some great replies and a good time was had by all. In that thread, I postulated that I'd need to repeat the same damned thing in this thread. Nobody ever listens to a KGIII. *sighs*
But, well, at least you get it, I don't know why the rest don't. However, I make this post to point out that I'd not thought about the term "place holder." I'm stealing that. I'm going to tweak it a little. We call it Dark Matter, as a place holder, because that lorem ipsum whateverum is just too damned long to type and memorize. Seriously, how is this a contentious matter? Now, the various theories as to what is causing the effect are straight up stupid (some of them) but that's immaterial.
I don't think that they thought it through very well when they decided to use this as a name. I can understand why some people are confused. I can't understand why they stay that way.
I, a mathematician, shall wax philosophical for you. (I'm already burning karma, probably. I've got more.)
At any rate...
Sometimes, it is those that know the least speak the loudest. It is often the least educated that proselytizes the most. Quite often, it is the uneducated and poor who zealously die first in battle.
There are, of course, exceptions as there are to most things. If one were to make a universal truth from this then it might simply be that people are people.
This, of course, ties in with a statement made above and a second one made below. The second one was actually first, you know. But, that's is the order of things on your screen - most likely. The world is a lot more honest with "weasel words." Well, no... But it *can* be.
And thus my philosophical bent must come to and end. However, as I'm burning karma, allow me to quote the great philosopher and bard himself, Ozzy Osbourne;
Everyone goes through changes, Looking to find the truth. Don't look at me for answers. Don't ask me, I don't know!
Science is very much a belief system. I find it a bit disconcerting that people will claim they're logical and reasoned and, if you ask the best of them, they'll tell you how they believe science. When you point out that science is, quite literally, openly admitting that it's "best guess" and probably always will be (in certain areas) and that it is illogical to believe that it is the truth they get feisty.
Of course this doesn't mean you should take something else on faith. But there's a huge difference between what we believe to be true and what is true which can be followed to all sorts of absurd conclusions. It's a hierarchal faith based belief system complete with dogma, dictation of values, proselytizing, shunning, and a greater power.
We just don't like to admit it. It's no more logical to place complete faith in it than it is to place complete faith in Jesus though we'll try to spin it that way in our heads - just like God-botherers. Of course, science has tangible benefits but we can, literally, claim everything is from science. That hammer? Yup, a product of science.
I'm far more likely to rely on science than I am a deity but that's because I understand it and I know it's an imperfect model and I do not believe it to be infallible. I do like the odds better with science than with Jesus but I've actually found the God-botherers to be a little less pushy in many areas.
(I'm pretty sure I can piss off both sides at once. What's karma if you can't burn it?)
To my mind, my degree is in Applied Mathematics, and to the minds of many others - the highest order of mathematician is, indeed, the Philosopher of Mathematics. They carry that name for a reason and one might say that mathematics is the highest order. There are still a few Philosophers of Mathematics kicking around. In fact, I started reading a paper from one not too long ago and, true to form, I stopped not long after the abstract and fell asleep. For the life of me, I've no idea what it was about and I don't appear to have bookmarked it - I just checked.
Anyhow... So, there might be some merit in checking with a philosopher if you want to learn the structure of the things around you. I'm not sure if you were joking or not but, if you were, you might be correct. Of course, the key question is, "A Philosopher of what, exactly?"
Now I know where I heard of them! Ha! I don't think it was here. I think it might have been on Voat. I think... I think this is the same company?
Didn't they have some guy stay at someone's house and that someone was a crazy, transgendered, rapist who threatened them with a knife and stuff? Actually, I think the owner was the crazy dude's mother or something. Anyhow, another mother was oddly involved and she was the mother of the victim and she called the company trying to rescue her son because he'd called her expressing concern and not called back so this company wouldn't give her the number or address where the kid was staying because of privacy reasons and refused to call the cops. I think that's how the story goes.
I suspect searching more reveals the rest. Also, it turns out it was a text message to his mother and not a phone call. He was in Madrid, Spain. I'm kind of surprised the publicity didn't do them harm. I wonder if there is still fallout coming? The host claims it was consensual. Who knows what the actual truth is but, damn it, I knew I'd heard of this company before! Hah! I'm not entirely out of touch.
That's an even better story for the Pinochle tables.
I only know of the Air one because it has been here on this site. I have no idea what the rest are. I've never actually been to the site of the company that I do know of.
I'm not sure what to make of that. I've seen Tindr before but I've no idea what they do. Vine is something grapes grow on. It's the only real word of the three.
I'm usually pretty decent with my technical jargon. I understood the concept of what you were saying but it's like speaking Spanish and still being able to understand Italian well enough to get the gist of it. The difference is, I expect you're speaking my language.
I could Google or I could remain willfully ignorant. I'm not sure I want to waste more brain cells. Earlier I Googled a video of some Watch Me thing (it had something resembling music but I'm not sure what *kind* of music it was). I'd always hoped their wouldn't be a generation gap but I think I've figured it out. We just don't want to keep up with all these things. Most of the time, they're words describing something that's neither new nor innovative.
From what I have read about the Air company, they're neither new nor innovative but "do it on a computer?" (Or, presumably, "with an APP!"?)
So, I'm going to assume that the bed and breakfast thing means you let someone stay in your house for a fee. Tindr means use them to kindle a fire. Vine means grapes, so you must then spread the word among your your friends and score points depending on how many Tindrs you get and you probably monetize it by betting. (Unless there's someone paying for charred remains?)
If that's not the case then, well, let me think it is. I'll be down in Florida soon and will be over at the club playing Pinochle and I want to have a good story to tell them what the crazy kids are doing on the newfangled internets these days.
I'll give you a realistic situation. Roads are built at a similar aim as the speed limit. In other words, they aim for a throughput (number of cars per hour) in the 85th percentile range. For some portion of the time, a higher percentage in congested or poorly designed areas, they are at maximum capacity. This is often known as rush hour and not all roads or highways are designed as well as they should/could be for a variety of reasons but the largest one being that they simply lack room as that capacity was not something thought about when the city was built.
Imagine, if you will, that there is some sort of crisis where you have EMTs, police, and firetrucks all needing to get to one location and that this occurs during peak times. With human drivers, they can indicate to others drivers that they'll be pulling off to the side. They can opt to split lanes. They can zipper merge to create room on an on-ramp. They can stop and allow an on-ramp to empty. They can indicate intent and make individual choices and, for the most part, this actually works pretty well.
In computer terms, think of it like bandwidth. Not only do you need to know where the packets are going but you also need to be able to have prioritized traffic or QOS traffic. Now, using bandwidth, you can't have collisions like you do with TCP/IP, that kills people. Not only that, you're trying to periodically trying to stuff 1 Gbps traffic through a 10 Mbsec hole and if this fails, people die.
You can virtual test all you want and that virtual testing would just indicate my point more strongly. Those are not people. Those are not disparate locations. Those are contrived (if any) emergencies. And, more importantly, they all are likely relying on centralized control. You're not going to see this for a very long time, or ever, without centralized control. You're not going to be able to do this without communications between the vehicles that share the same space. We've neither the compute power nor the infrastructure to enable such.
So, I respectfully disagree. That's just one of many examples that I can come up with. A few is fine but it really is a lot like chaos and not entirely predictable. It is generally those unpredictable times when things matter most. Also, what a strange turn this conversation has taken.;-) I enjoy a good debate. I might even learn something new. However, I still respectfully disagree.
You can't just have one sitting idle at AWS waiting for you or have some sort of CDN-esque creature where you just failover to a new DC where you've already got everything setup and spin up a VM as you need with data already synced from a main image somewhere? This seems like it'd be pretty easy to have ready and waiting and you should probably be relying on multiple data centers now if you're using the network to do your computing. Maybe I'm missing something?
I encourage you to look into vehicular traffic modeling. One thing computers can't do is interpret intent (this is but one small example) for which you'll at least need mesh networking. But, for that to work, you're going to have to prioritize. In order to prioritize you'll need centralization. In short, no - it's not going to work on a large scale without this. Everything does *not* go as planned. Traffic modeling is very close to modeling chaos and for a bunch of very complex reasons.
As for the computer then, I submit again, that we'd be talking *mandatory* compliance and single use for the sake of the analogy. The topic isn't/wasn't appliances but mandatory use or something one can not control to the exclusion of a device that would be in ones control. Those are (mostly) valid points you made but I don't see them as being pertinent. The key issue raised was that it would be mandatory to the exclusion of all else.
I dunno if we've actually babbled about it but, well, I sort of, kind of, was one of the people who got traffic modeling *on a computer* going. This is not an appeal to authority. I'm simply suggesting that you might want to look at the complexity. The last time I saw a bunch of autonomous robots on wheels was a not-too-long-ago (they were "intelligently" selecting their own path) in a large box. They did alright with a few of them and then they added more to the mix and those gridlocked and kept banging into each other.
You can solve that. It's going to need, for the foreseeable future, a lot of horsepower and that's not going to work as well as people seem to be hoping without centralized authority. What we can do is have some limited subset and run with that, for the time being. But, without a centralized authority and a mesh network, I don't see it being possible for quite some time or, perhaps, ever.
Commonsense would suggest that autonomous cars would do well in a high-traffic situation. I submit that this is unlikely to be true without some rather intrusive tech being used. It would be awesome if I were wrong but I kind of doubt it. I wouldn't want it but I'd find the tech absolutely fascinating. A one-trick pony from Google does not make an autonomous system. This, of course, doesn't mean that they don't have a place nor does it mean that they won't ever get here - regardless of privacy implications.
I have gotta stop Googlin' shit I find on Slashdot. You'd think I'd know better by now. How the hell do you even know that? I don't know which one of us should be more ashamed of ourselves.:/
I actually find it hard to believe that this is true. I'm half-tempted to make a bet that, within a year, this will be back in court.
Hmm... Anyone want to take the bet? I'll sing and upload the song if it's not back in court within a year from today if anyone wants to take the opposite bet where they sing and upload the song (and accept the consequences).
In this day and age, how hard is it to spin up a new VM instance "in the cloud" and just run with it as a functional equivalent of a different network share?
A long time ago, we had a space shuttle that blew up with a teacher on it. That shuttle was named Challenger and after it blew up there was a rather lengthy period of downtime and a review. In that review a gentleman named Feynman stuck a gasket in a cup of ice water to show how brittle it was. Eventually, they solved this problem and launched the shuttle again.
Why do I tell you that?
Well, a couple of weeks before the shuttle resumed launching, NASA had their networks compromised and someone (they think it was an Australian) put a bit of "fake" malware on a bunch of their networked computers. The malware didn't do anything except display an image and say it was going to do something or threaten to do something.
Why do I tell you that?
Well, NASA's had shit security in the past and managed to fix it. They've overcome some of the most intense engineering issues of our time at so many levels that I can't even begin to enumerate them. That you're willfully ignorant of history says more about you than it says about NASA. They're still doing some of the best engineering on the planet. I think a good, recent, example would be a few snapshots of a planet(ish) body known as Pluto.
So the answer is, I take it, that you have no proof and that you'll believe this without any proof at all. I think they call that "faith" in some spheres. So, it's good that you have faith.
At that point, I'm starting to lose the mobility feature of a laptop. My poor laptop bag is full. I've already got an external drive, etc... I might have to consider it though. I did have a nice wireless, small too, keyboard that had a touchpad on it. I think it was BT. Thanks, I'll have to give it a shot at some point. Probably at my next stop. I'll be leaving here over the weekend or on Monday, probably. Off to Florida with the missus in tow. Well, maybe a stop in Georgia first. I can go pick on the alligators.
Unless there's something I am unaware of, you have a strange definition of "known." I believe unreliable sources have made some dubious claims but I don't recall anyone providing proof. A quick Google shows a debunked Bloomberg article and a few people who continue to cite it. I'd be curious to read any proof of such. Speculation isn't really proof.
Certainly true but it is possible to operate a computer safely without a resident, always scanning, AV application *with* Windows. I've done so and used infrequent scanning with MBAM (or others) and had nary a problem and that's not limiting myself to just certain sections of the web. It is being cautious, using least privileges, installing only from trusted sources, and observing network ingress and egress prodigiously - which can be automated, to some extent.
This of course is of no benefit to Mr. Stupid, as you say, but it is possible. I'd point out that I have absolutely no anti-malware installed on anything that I have with me but that'd be a bit misleading. Other than my phone, I have no Microsoft products with me. That doesn't really negate my point and my point doesn't negate your point. I just figured it'd make good additional information. I'd absolutely not recommend Mr. Stupid use Windows without an AV application running, updated, and set to scan everything.
As an aside: I'd always kept Linux installed on one partition or another but seldom spent much time using it. I finally realized that I wasn't learning anything new and that I was becoming a passive consumer. I nuked all of my Windows boxes that were in-use and haven't looked back. My MSDN subscription has even lapsed and I doubt that I will re-up it.
That leads me to question this... Some of us seem inclined (I am not one) to think that this should become mandatory yet they don't seem aware of the privacy indications. There's simply no way that this is going to work in aggregate without a lot of compute power to control the grid, not for the foreseeable future. (Model traffic, you'll understand.) There's a minimal mesh network required if not something more capable as an offloaded compute source if we want this to be viable.
That said, I wonder how many would champion computer that came with mandatory approved software and only that software? As the IoT becomes a thing then we can project that disruptions will cause true physical harm and so, for safety sake, having automated computing or controlled computing, as it were, as a mandatory step is a similar enough analogy.
So, with privacy implications and the reduction in freedoms as quite probable outcomes, I wonder why there are so many advocates here?
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct! No matter what it is that is causing the observed effects that is *dark matter.* There are many competing theories as to what dark matter is, some of them are outlandish. However, even if it turns out that the effects observed are caused by purple unicorn farts, the purple unicorn farts are dark matter.
I had an excellent conversation with a Slashdotter about this, just a few days ago, and I've concluded that I hate the name as much as I hate The God Particle. I can think of no other reason why people are so unwilling to understand. It's really quite simple. It is simple enough for *me* to understand it. Something is causing an effect. No matter what that is, whatever it turns out to be that is causing that effect, it is dark matter.
I know, I was even given some sort-of-thanks, that I explained this quite clearly in the thread that was active just this week. I even explained it multiple times and had some great replies and a good time was had by all. In that thread, I postulated that I'd need to repeat the same damned thing in this thread. Nobody ever listens to a KGIII. *sighs*
But, well, at least you get it, I don't know why the rest don't. However, I make this post to point out that I'd not thought about the term "place holder." I'm stealing that. I'm going to tweak it a little. We call it Dark Matter, as a place holder, because that lorem ipsum whateverum is just too damned long to type and memorize. Seriously, how is this a contentious matter? Now, the various theories as to what is causing the effect are straight up stupid (some of them) but that's immaterial.
I don't think that they thought it through very well when they decided to use this as a name. I can understand why some people are confused. I can't understand why they stay that way.
I, a mathematician, shall wax philosophical for you. (I'm already burning karma, probably. I've got more.)
At any rate...
Sometimes, it is those that know the least speak the loudest. It is often the least educated that proselytizes the most. Quite often, it is the uneducated and poor who zealously die first in battle.
There are, of course, exceptions as there are to most things. If one were to make a universal truth from this then it might simply be that people are people.
This, of course, ties in with a statement made above and a second one made below. The second one was actually first, you know. But, that's is the order of things on your screen - most likely. The world is a lot more honest with "weasel words." Well, no... But it *can* be.
And thus my philosophical bent must come to and end. However, as I'm burning karma, allow me to quote the great philosopher and bard himself, Ozzy Osbourne;
Everyone goes through changes,
Looking to find the truth.
Don't look at me for answers.
Don't ask me, I don't know!
Meh, I'll burn some karma with you.
Science is very much a belief system. I find it a bit disconcerting that people will claim they're logical and reasoned and, if you ask the best of them, they'll tell you how they believe science. When you point out that science is, quite literally, openly admitting that it's "best guess" and probably always will be (in certain areas) and that it is illogical to believe that it is the truth they get feisty.
Of course this doesn't mean you should take something else on faith. But there's a huge difference between what we believe to be true and what is true which can be followed to all sorts of absurd conclusions. It's a hierarchal faith based belief system complete with dogma, dictation of values, proselytizing, shunning, and a greater power.
We just don't like to admit it. It's no more logical to place complete faith in it than it is to place complete faith in Jesus though we'll try to spin it that way in our heads - just like God-botherers. Of course, science has tangible benefits but we can, literally, claim everything is from science. That hammer? Yup, a product of science.
I'm far more likely to rely on science than I am a deity but that's because I understand it and I know it's an imperfect model and I do not believe it to be infallible. I do like the odds better with science than with Jesus but I've actually found the God-botherers to be a little less pushy in many areas.
(I'm pretty sure I can piss off both sides at once. What's karma if you can't burn it?)
To my mind, my degree is in Applied Mathematics, and to the minds of many others - the highest order of mathematician is, indeed, the Philosopher of Mathematics. They carry that name for a reason and one might say that mathematics is the highest order. There are still a few Philosophers of Mathematics kicking around. In fact, I started reading a paper from one not too long ago and, true to form, I stopped not long after the abstract and fell asleep. For the life of me, I've no idea what it was about and I don't appear to have bookmarked it - I just checked.
Anyhow... So, there might be some merit in checking with a philosopher if you want to learn the structure of the things around you. I'm not sure if you were joking or not but, if you were, you might be correct. Of course, the key question is, "A Philosopher of what, exactly?"
Now I know where I heard of them! Ha! I don't think it was here. I think it might have been on Voat. I think... I think this is the same company?
Didn't they have some guy stay at someone's house and that someone was a crazy, transgendered, rapist who threatened them with a knife and stuff? Actually, I think the owner was the crazy dude's mother or something. Anyhow, another mother was oddly involved and she was the mother of the victim and she called the company trying to rescue her son because he'd called her expressing concern and not called back so this company wouldn't give her the number or address where the kid was staying because of privacy reasons and refused to call the cops. I think that's how the story goes.
Hmm... A quick Google shows this:
http://www.whdh.com/story/2980...
I suspect searching more reveals the rest. Also, it turns out it was a text message to his mother and not a phone call. He was in Madrid, Spain. I'm kind of surprised the publicity didn't do them harm. I wonder if there is still fallout coming? The host claims it was consensual. Who knows what the actual truth is but, damn it, I knew I'd heard of this company before! Hah! I'm not entirely out of touch.
That's an even better story for the Pinochle tables.
I only know of the Air one because it has been here on this site. I have no idea what the rest are. I've never actually been to the site of the company that I do know of.
I'm not sure what to make of that. I've seen Tindr before but I've no idea what they do. Vine is something grapes grow on. It's the only real word of the three.
I'm usually pretty decent with my technical jargon. I understood the concept of what you were saying but it's like speaking Spanish and still being able to understand Italian well enough to get the gist of it. The difference is, I expect you're speaking my language.
I could Google or I could remain willfully ignorant. I'm not sure I want to waste more brain cells. Earlier I Googled a video of some Watch Me thing (it had something resembling music but I'm not sure what *kind* of music it was). I'd always hoped their wouldn't be a generation gap but I think I've figured it out. We just don't want to keep up with all these things. Most of the time, they're words describing something that's neither new nor innovative.
From what I have read about the Air company, they're neither new nor innovative but "do it on a computer?" (Or, presumably, "with an APP!"?)
So, I'm going to assume that the bed and breakfast thing means you let someone stay in your house for a fee. Tindr means use them to kindle a fire. Vine means grapes, so you must then spread the word among your your friends and score points depending on how many Tindrs you get and you probably monetize it by betting. (Unless there's someone paying for charred remains?)
If that's not the case then, well, let me think it is. I'll be down in Florida soon and will be over at the club playing Pinochle and I want to have a good story to tell them what the crazy kids are doing on the newfangled internets these days.
See, I did. I didn't find any such law. That's why I asked. If you have one by name then, by all means, I'd love to read it and see some case law.
Thanks. I chuckled.
It's the law in those two states. I have no idea why it is the law in Oregon but I suspect it's mob-related in NJ.
I'll give you a realistic situation. Roads are built at a similar aim as the speed limit. In other words, they aim for a throughput (number of cars per hour) in the 85th percentile range. For some portion of the time, a higher percentage in congested or poorly designed areas, they are at maximum capacity. This is often known as rush hour and not all roads or highways are designed as well as they should/could be for a variety of reasons but the largest one being that they simply lack room as that capacity was not something thought about when the city was built.
Imagine, if you will, that there is some sort of crisis where you have EMTs, police, and firetrucks all needing to get to one location and that this occurs during peak times. With human drivers, they can indicate to others drivers that they'll be pulling off to the side. They can opt to split lanes. They can zipper merge to create room on an on-ramp. They can stop and allow an on-ramp to empty. They can indicate intent and make individual choices and, for the most part, this actually works pretty well.
In computer terms, think of it like bandwidth. Not only do you need to know where the packets are going but you also need to be able to have prioritized traffic or QOS traffic. Now, using bandwidth, you can't have collisions like you do with TCP/IP, that kills people. Not only that, you're trying to periodically trying to stuff 1 Gbps traffic through a 10 Mbsec hole and if this fails, people die.
You can virtual test all you want and that virtual testing would just indicate my point more strongly. Those are not people. Those are not disparate locations. Those are contrived (if any) emergencies. And, more importantly, they all are likely relying on centralized control. You're not going to see this for a very long time, or ever, without centralized control. You're not going to be able to do this without communications between the vehicles that share the same space. We've neither the compute power nor the infrastructure to enable such.
So, I respectfully disagree. That's just one of many examples that I can come up with. A few is fine but it really is a lot like chaos and not entirely predictable. It is generally those unpredictable times when things matter most. Also, what a strange turn this conversation has taken. ;-) I enjoy a good debate. I might even learn something new. However, I still respectfully disagree.
You can't just have one sitting idle at AWS waiting for you or have some sort of CDN-esque creature where you just failover to a new DC where you've already got everything setup and spin up a VM as you need with data already synced from a main image somewhere? This seems like it'd be pretty easy to have ready and waiting and you should probably be relying on multiple data centers now if you're using the network to do your computing. Maybe I'm missing something?
This One Secret Trick Slashdot Uses to Increase Click-Through Rates!
I encourage you to look into vehicular traffic modeling. One thing computers can't do is interpret intent (this is but one small example) for which you'll at least need mesh networking. But, for that to work, you're going to have to prioritize. In order to prioritize you'll need centralization. In short, no - it's not going to work on a large scale without this. Everything does *not* go as planned. Traffic modeling is very close to modeling chaos and for a bunch of very complex reasons.
As for the computer then, I submit again, that we'd be talking *mandatory* compliance and single use for the sake of the analogy. The topic isn't/wasn't appliances but mandatory use or something one can not control to the exclusion of a device that would be in ones control. Those are (mostly) valid points you made but I don't see them as being pertinent. The key issue raised was that it would be mandatory to the exclusion of all else.
I dunno if we've actually babbled about it but, well, I sort of, kind of, was one of the people who got traffic modeling *on a computer* going. This is not an appeal to authority. I'm simply suggesting that you might want to look at the complexity. The last time I saw a bunch of autonomous robots on wheels was a not-too-long-ago (they were "intelligently" selecting their own path) in a large box. They did alright with a few of them and then they added more to the mix and those gridlocked and kept banging into each other.
You can solve that. It's going to need, for the foreseeable future, a lot of horsepower and that's not going to work as well as people seem to be hoping without centralized authority. What we can do is have some limited subset and run with that, for the time being. But, without a centralized authority and a mesh network, I don't see it being possible for quite some time or, perhaps, ever.
Commonsense would suggest that autonomous cars would do well in a high-traffic situation. I submit that this is unlikely to be true without some rather intrusive tech being used. It would be awesome if I were wrong but I kind of doubt it. I wouldn't want it but I'd find the tech absolutely fascinating. A one-trick pony from Google does not make an autonomous system. This, of course, doesn't mean that they don't have a place nor does it mean that they won't ever get here - regardless of privacy implications.
I have gotta stop Googlin' shit I find on Slashdot. You'd think I'd know better by now. How the hell do you even know that? I don't know which one of us should be more ashamed of ourselves. :/
I actually find it hard to believe that this is true. I'm half-tempted to make a bet that, within a year, this will be back in court.
Hmm... Anyone want to take the bet? I'll sing and upload the song if it's not back in court within a year from today if anyone wants to take the opposite bet where they sing and upload the song (and accept the consequences).
You have obviously never been to New Jersey or Oregon. Or at least not gone to a gas station in either of those two states.
In this day and age, how hard is it to spin up a new VM instance "in the cloud" and just run with it as a functional equivalent of a different network share?
A long time ago, we had a space shuttle that blew up with a teacher on it. That shuttle was named Challenger and after it blew up there was a rather lengthy period of downtime and a review. In that review a gentleman named Feynman stuck a gasket in a cup of ice water to show how brittle it was. Eventually, they solved this problem and launched the shuttle again.
Why do I tell you that?
Well, a couple of weeks before the shuttle resumed launching, NASA had their networks compromised and someone (they think it was an Australian) put a bit of "fake" malware on a bunch of their networked computers. The malware didn't do anything except display an image and say it was going to do something or threaten to do something.
Why do I tell you that?
Well, NASA's had shit security in the past and managed to fix it. They've overcome some of the most intense engineering issues of our time at so many levels that I can't even begin to enumerate them. That you're willfully ignorant of history says more about you than it says about NASA. They're still doing some of the best engineering on the planet. I think a good, recent, example would be a few snapshots of a planet(ish) body known as Pluto.
They're doing fine.
So the answer is, I take it, that you have no proof and that you'll believe this without any proof at all. I think they call that "faith" in some spheres. So, it's good that you have faith.
Trick lesson/question! Where's the bootloader?
At that point, I'm starting to lose the mobility feature of a laptop. My poor laptop bag is full. I've already got an external drive, etc... I might have to consider it though. I did have a nice wireless, small too, keyboard that had a touchpad on it. I think it was BT. Thanks, I'll have to give it a shot at some point. Probably at my next stop. I'll be leaving here over the weekend or on Monday, probably. Off to Florida with the missus in tow. Well, maybe a stop in Georgia first. I can go pick on the alligators.
Probably because, if they did, you'd complain that it is bloatware and not configurable enough? Just a guess.
Unless there's something I am unaware of, you have a strange definition of "known." I believe unreliable sources have made some dubious claims but I don't recall anyone providing proof. A quick Google shows a debunked Bloomberg article and a few people who continue to cite it. I'd be curious to read any proof of such. Speculation isn't really proof.
Certainly true but it is possible to operate a computer safely without a resident, always scanning, AV application *with* Windows. I've done so and used infrequent scanning with MBAM (or others) and had nary a problem and that's not limiting myself to just certain sections of the web. It is being cautious, using least privileges, installing only from trusted sources, and observing network ingress and egress prodigiously - which can be automated, to some extent.
This of course is of no benefit to Mr. Stupid, as you say, but it is possible. I'd point out that I have absolutely no anti-malware installed on anything that I have with me but that'd be a bit misleading. Other than my phone, I have no Microsoft products with me. That doesn't really negate my point and my point doesn't negate your point. I just figured it'd make good additional information. I'd absolutely not recommend Mr. Stupid use Windows without an AV application running, updated, and set to scan everything.
As an aside: I'd always kept Linux installed on one partition or another but seldom spent much time using it. I finally realized that I wasn't learning anything new and that I was becoming a passive consumer. I nuked all of my Windows boxes that were in-use and haven't looked back. My MSDN subscription has even lapsed and I doubt that I will re-up it.
That leads me to question this... Some of us seem inclined (I am not one) to think that this should become mandatory yet they don't seem aware of the privacy indications. There's simply no way that this is going to work in aggregate without a lot of compute power to control the grid, not for the foreseeable future. (Model traffic, you'll understand.) There's a minimal mesh network required if not something more capable as an offloaded compute source if we want this to be viable.
That said, I wonder how many would champion computer that came with mandatory approved software and only that software? As the IoT becomes a thing then we can project that disruptions will cause true physical harm and so, for safety sake, having automated computing or controlled computing, as it were, as a mandatory step is a similar enough analogy.
So, with privacy implications and the reduction in freedoms as quite probable outcomes, I wonder why there are so many advocates here?