Re: This is rapidly becoming a world laughing stock
Probably some financial bombshell that instantly kills global trust in the Dollar.
5256 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Probably some financial bombshell that instantly kills global trust in the Dollar.
But it's still a veritable one-stop shop for identity theft, which itself has serious security consequences.
The ROM can ITSELF hold the flaw.
And the Harvard approach kills JIT compilers which are needed in performance-intensive applications.
Even the tide has a problem against a cliff. Desktops are still too useful and too powerful which is why they remain the baseline for performance gaming.
Not just crap but hard to handle. It only worked at a certain minimum temperature, so it had to be literally warmed up to work, which is why Konami had to come up with their noted "Morning Music" as a warm-up signal for their Bubble System games. Not to mention the reading process was destructive, meaning you had to feed the data back in as soon as it was read, and if something went wrong in between, the whole works got corrupted.
"If it sounds too good to be true..."
I was noting that, too. I mean, a product that can supplant both the DRAM and the mass storage market in one stroke? That's an exceedingly rare thing indeed no matter where you come from, so as the saying goes, "I'll believe it when I see it."
Wake me when this stuff actually sees a mainstream product launch. Until then, it's just another vaporware.
You claim everyone would ditch Google in a heartbeat, but ask yourself, "For WHAT?" Who else is out there that is as feature-rich as Android and Google that would allow people to pick up where they left off? Apart from Apple, who's just as guilty, I doubt you'll find a serious answer. And since they've become too ubiquitous, I doubt they'll be convinced to abandon cell phones altogether for fear of that emergency call that can't wait and so on.
"Electric cars are a technological dead end anyway."
If electric cars are a dead end, what will replace them when there is an eventual move to reduce the number of ICEs on the road, being highly inefficient and polluting and all?
But then again, I wonder what would happen if such a person turned out to be a Hindu who will not kill a creature for religious reasons (meaning the First Amendment comes into play).
See my argument about PLANTS being sentient.
Wonder if anyone ever defaced one of those billboards with spray paint that says, "Good! I eat cats, too!"?
"How does it work in the US - is there something similar, or are property rights stronger? Just asking, because I'm genuinely interested."
There's no uniform policy on the matter. It depends usually on state and local Health Codes. Generally, though, pest creatures like ants, roaches, and rodents need to be controlled, particularly in eateries, and places can be subject to inspection, especially if complaints are lodged against the place. As to the owner's complaints about non-lethal methods, she's up against the rest of the neighborhood; her rights can be trumped by everyone else's right to a clean, disease-controlled environment. He/she would have to take that up with the City Council/State Legislature if she wants his/her way. At the extreme, they DO have the power to condemn places they deem uninhabitable due to filth or pestilence.
Well, it's kind of being in a leaky boat and the only implement to hand IS a drill.
But what happens when the programs in the non-reprogrammable ROM chips are found to have exploits in them? Now you have an unpatchable exploit.
"It seems hard to believe that someone has the time and ability to recreate the factory firmware for so many different devices without access to the original firmware's sourcecode."
Thing is, they can obtain the firmware through other means, such as a legitimate update download. They can then tinker with it offline at their leisure, allowing them to basically rebuild it to their needs (including taking out things to make room and so on), THEN find a way to inject the malware.
I always put it this way. What good is one smart vote versus ten stupid votes?
Are you sure? I believe you overestimate the collective intelligence of modern society.
"Tell them they can't have it."
They won't take no for an answer AND they vote.
This I could see as a sensible proposition: both the patent and the means to implement it, on the condition they actually DO implement it.
OK, we'll grant you that one, but given that the scheme was created for Windows 95 (so as to allow the system to compete on the LFN front with other systems like OS/2), the clock on that patent has got to be running out soon. And anything pertaining to LFN on NTFS is probably on a shorter clock if not already up because NTFS was developed with the original Windows NT, which is several years older than Windows 95.
Microsoft's typical threat strategy is to simply say they're violating some of Microsoft's patents but never saying WHICH ones. Many of the Linux firms sues are hair-shirt and can't afford to take Microsoft to court over the matter which is right now the only way to force the patents out into daylight. There's a fair chance the patents are real and they'll lose, so it's too much of a gamble. If they're exposed BEFOREHAND, however, they can conduct their own research to see if the patent's worth fighting for BEFORE soliciting legal help.
The actual inventor can produce a few prototypes. Since he has the patent with the intent to produce, he'd be motivated to do this. This can be taken into consideration. A troll would have to be pretty determined to put down for the costs needed to actually produce something, and the scale of the production run vs. the scale of the holder can be considered as well.
No, because what if the patent is the most valuable asset of a company under bankruptcy? Selling it could be the only way to emerge as a going concern rather than be liquidated (and it is in the interest of government to keep going concerns when possible--it's more stable that way). I think my idea's better. That way the patent can be sold if need be, but it's simply not enforceable unless it's actually implemented either directly or through a designee: much like that other thing the office regulates: the trademark.
"The problem is that the USPTO is funded by patent application fees. It's in their best interest to consider and award as many patents as possible."
Aren't the application fees nonrefundable, so they get the fees pass or fail? Meaning that's not really an incentive?
"With http you might be able to stay anonymous."
"No, not if your url is part of the HSTS list."
But if your site is NOT on the list, the ISP or whatever can intercept the HSTS flag and erase it, preventing your browser from going opportunistically secure.
Thing is, in this case the US Government controls the NSA: in particular, the President and the Secretary of Defense (the NSA falls under the DoD).
HSTS is still vulnerable as ISPs and malware can hijack the handshake that occurs just before the transition to HTTPS. It's best to go HTTPS from the go. As for broken links, don't many browsers automatically try the HTTPS version if the HTTP version draws an error? Suppose all previous HTTP pages return a 301 which refers to its HTTPS counterpart? Is that a correct 301 response?
SPDY is being replaced with a related system and incorporated into HTTP/2, which WILL require encrypted connections from the go.
As for caching, you can always hash static content.
"except the government of course... but that can't be helped, obs."
Except they don't have to listen on the encrypted connection. As they're one end of the conversation, they can just read things in the clear AFTER they're decrypted.
"HTTPS also guarantees that the data hasn't been tampered with."
It doesn't NECESSARILY guarantee that, especially for ephemeral sites where someone can start an HTTPS proxy with a fake certificate.
But here, we're talking the US Government who WILL have a genuine secure certificate whose public traces are pretty much all around the country (basically, anyone who does web business with the US will have a trace). The preponderance of evidence already out there would help make it easier to notice if someone's trying to impersonate the government with a secure proxy. Basically, with all government communication in future over HTTPS, odds will be passing fair no one's listening in on the encrypted connection. That can only help.
"You can't trust anything or anyone."
So why are you even communicating? That ALONE implies some level of trust. If you really CAN'T trust anything OR anyone, you'd be alone in an old lead mine in the middle of nowhere, subsisting using nothing but your wits and your experience.
"Sadly even I know that God don't kill people, people kill people so don't ban God or is that the Gun?"
Joke aside, how do you counter the idea of the miscarriage, the stillborn, or someone just plain struck by a bolt out of the blue? In other words, if God (or His universe) doesn't kill people, what about all those people killed by sheer chance, with no hand of man involved?
"Taken to the extreme, this omnipotent God has created everything, including my current thoughts, and memories of my past joy and pain, and so already knows the result of the trials inflicted on me.'
Perhaps it's best to say that God isn't truly omnipotent: just close to it. Many interpretations put Man as God's big wildcard: the concept so out there even He can't predict it (as in God can't predict Man's will). That was why Eve and then Adam were able to be turned astray: because they had the capability to do so, and thus introduced to God's universe the idea of the wildcard. Seen in that light, all the ordeals God puts before man can be seen as a kind of trial by ordeal: fire-forging. What doesn't kill or break you makes you stronger, and so on.
"One aspect that they might be missing out in California is driving in a snowstorm, especially at night. It really changes everything when most of your vision is filled with an almost opaque wall of snowflakes flowing toward you."
Well, in regards to inclement and especially extreme weather (like the blizzard you describe), there's a fair chance of the car outseeing the human because with the imaging technology available to day, to say nothing of down the road, the car can likely "see better than the average person". Now, I'll grant you GPS at its current state probably isn't accurate enough to distinguish between one side of the road and the other, but perhaps with infrared and radar imagery, it'll probably have a better shot of seeing through the snow and getting an idea of where the road's supposed to be.
What you did at the end also indicates what the ultimate failsafe should be for a car that is unable to navigate. If, in spite of all its abilities, it cannot find the way forward (such as not being able to discern the road due to heavy snow, a washout, or an unexpected road change, it should find someplace safe, alert the driver that it cannot continue, and perhaps suggest requesting assistance. As a last resort (if going forward is a must), it could turn the matter back over to the driver while advising proceeding with utmost caution. That way, at the least, if something happens, it's not nearly as likely to be a big something.
As for your breakdown issue, a smart car should be able to discern it as an obstruction. But I'll grant you maneuvering will be difficult if traffic is reduced to one lane for both directions as a result. The best solution would be for a policeman to direct traffic, and their dress codes can be updated to make their signals easier to distinguish.
The bump (or stop) is the thing about 3 feet wide and 6 inches high that's supposed to stop a parking car from going too far and going over the pedestrian-only sidewalk.
A support pole is one that may be holding up the front overhang of a store, keeping it from falling on you.
And the "C" is short for "convenience". As in SPAR or best-one on your side of the water. Imagine a crazed driver jumping the kerb and crashing into a SPAR, and you'll get an idea of what I saw at a 7-Eleven.
(Not the incident I saw, but still a good example)
"Also I will lookup a nipkov disc tomorrow, it sounds jolly interesting."
While you're at it, look up "Magic Lantern", which actually did use candles at first.
"Google Car hurtles into orphanage, many orphans die."
Show just how something like that would happen more often than with a human driver (and I've PERSONALLY witnessed a drunk driver jump a parking bump, ricochet off a support pole, and drive INTO the front door of a C-store) and without outside help (such as being forced off by a human driver).
"Next case is Google v Tour de France Peleton."
How would a Google Car be permitted on a Tour de France course? And what about the spectators that are between an outside car and the course itself? And like I said, what's to stop a human from doing the same, only more frequently due to inattention, inebriation, or both?
"A good driver does do all sorts of things that an autonomous car would have difficulty doing as well."
Can you cite some specific examples of things that humans could do easily that no reasonable amount of machine sensors and training could do as well? Because I strongly suspect there's actually very little true intuition (probably the one thing machines can't replicate) in driving and that it's mostly a matter of subtle cues we're trained to recognize: cues that a well-sensored machine could be trained to notice as well.
Decently well, I would think. Radar doesn't rely on metal, and to stealth a vehicle requires a combination of radar-deflecting design and radar-absorbing paint, and they'd still be of limited use in multistatic (they'd spot the dead zone against the background) or mobile (the case here, it can hit differing angles) detectors.
That's a thought. A computer-driven car can be programmed to assume the worst: that a car might suddenly stop in front of them, swerve into them, cut into the narrow gap you normally leave for the first instance, assume the end of a blind curve can be roadblocked, and so on. And make all the car's driving actions work under those assumptions. That way you don't need cues to be prepared for trouble: you're prepared in any event.
But then you read the part at the bottom about the bicycle swerving in front of the G-car, a textbook example of unexpected behavior, yet the G-car reacted correctly and AVOIDED it.
So you call an online collaborative whiteboard bollox? An online graphical language recognizer for an elaborate language like Chinese or Japanese where specific stroke order is important? A place like eBay where timing is key (the delay of a page load can be the difference between winning and losing an auction--I can speak from experience).
So you ask WHO says web pages have to be dynamic? YOUR CLIENTS DO! Time is money in today's society, so static pages are passe.
"I have no idea how often the intoximeters at the local cop shop need calibrating, but I suspect it's fairly regularly."
This site would seem to agree with you.
Then again, in-car breathalyzers could be subject to the annual inspection just like everything else...
"Good luck getting studios to agree to this system without every single VFX house getting on board at once though..."
Which then introduces a dilemma. With the industry that cutthroat, all it would take is ONE renegade firm to make the whole works collapse because the studios will then clamor to the renegade. Sounds to me like you could equate the VFX business problem to the Prisoner's Dilemma of game theory. Everyone's out for themselves, so they don't trust each other. Thus the best-case scenario (and perhaps the only one that sees them surviving) can't be reached. Instead, they assume one of them will turn on them, so they will turn in kind. Inevitable result: everyone gets exploited by the studios since THEY have all the money.
But just as insiders don't always see how their actions impact outside, so too do outside regulators not always see that their regulations can have a very bad effect on the market they're trying to regulate. Consider this. Why isn't there much of an investment in more modern nuclear reactors? Part of it is capital but the main reason is the recalcitrance of nuclear regulators. Scared as they are by thoughts of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, they don't seem to realize that these are exceptions rather than norms (TMI was actually contained--no one died--Chernobyl was a result of a bad experiment combined with poor management, and Fukushima was lack of foresight combined with an unprecedented natural disaster). Have they given thought to the idea that, maybe, we learned our lesson and are now building newer, better reactors that are designed to handle things better than the ones already in existence now? Why is there such reluctance to allow even one or modern reactors in the middle of nowhere, perhaps, when we have no practical alternative to growing energy demands for the forseeable future? Renewable is too fickle and too dependent on rare materials that have to be mined, creating a catch-22 of sorts (you need energy to mine the materials you need to produce energy, etc.), and we can't continue with the status quo.
I'm saying experience is BOTH boon and bane. You're right that people with experience in the code will know about the little nooks and crannies. But what about the parts of the code they're NOT familiar with? Their perspective will be COLORED by their experience, so they may not see the hole in the code since they're trained to spot other types of exploits. Furthermore, some of the more novel exploits have employed multiple little pieces coming together in a gestalt-like manner (think return-oriented programming which relies on exploiting multiple little bits of code); unless someone is intimately familiar with ALL the pieces involved, they're likely to overlook the exploit since some of it's beyond their scope.
"Security research does not depend on particular abilities of the young. Unless, that is, you want smart, skilled people willing to work long hours for low wages,which incidentally brings us around to the UK MoDs effort, the joint reserve unit, who hope to do just that :)"
Thing is, older people can be hidebound: stuck in ruts. Young people aren't burdened by experience so are more likely to think outside the box, and that's where most of our novel exploits are coming from: side channel attacks and the like.
"A subscriber base of 1 is hardly going to show up on their radar now is it?"
I would think it would be even more of a red flag. You can't have too many customers, yes, but you also can't have too few as that would be a tipoff of it being one meant to bypass the firewall.