Re: Blindsided, and re-licensed at gunpoint?
I am not even sure a critical security-related bugfix can be copyrighted, let alone forced under a different license. Might be considered a case of fair use.
184 posts • joined 12 Aug 2009
replacing free of charge
I don't see that happening, ever. Especially not for skylakes and older. The cost would be exorbitant, especially for all the machines where it's soldered on, like my new laptop. At best, they'll make a deal on class lawsuit, giving everyone $5 for their troubles.
> can be exploited by simply opening an image file
MS16-106 looks surprisingly like the good old MS04-028 to me. A very convenient backdoor, at least till it lasts (and I bet the fix will reintroduce it in some other place). C'mon, Microsoft, admit it - ... wait, what's that light outside?
>can it produce a CPU?
You'll probably need a mini-fab for chippery, a couple of 3d-printers and programmable routers for parts, a chem lab to produce the raw materials, and a few
assembly robots humans to put those parts together. The equipment in question should be ready-made on earth from parts only made by the first generation of this machinery, to avoid a sad case of "wait, we didn't plan on being able to make that gear wheel!".
Of the above, the only problematic part is the mini-fab, with high-purity compounds it requires, therefore chips, as an exception, and being small, can be shipped from earth as a supply. They're also quite cheap.
While nice for large-scale conquest of the universe, they're an overkill for solar system base, or even first bases elsewhere. A more conventional replicator will do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanking_replicator
Totally unnecessary on the moon (where solar power is highly available). Could help on Europa and other water/light element worlds, but much less on Mars, which doesn't have too much water. On the pretty dry Moon those are almost useless (though I realize the colonists will have hydrogen as a by-product of oxygen generation, at least before they establish a closed carbon cycle).
Useful for terraforming, but i predict it'll take some time till humans readily undergo genetic manipulation themselves. Theoretically, one can design a space-capable body, complete with solar cells, closed oxygen/carbon/nitrogen cycles, vents to absorb interstellar gases and even jet engines or solar sails... In a few million years that's what we can become, if that's the path we choose.
at this point, why colonize? Just send pieces of "computronium" anywhere, they don't care where they land, the AIs there (and uploaded humans) will exist in simulated realities having no dependence on actual physical surroundings. That's the alternate path, but it too is way in the future.
No, I believe we could create a self-sustainable base using modern-day technology alone. Some of the necessary machinery already exists, some will need to be developed, but those are engineering, not technology problems. And cost, yes, the cost.
Better arguments? I've got them.
>what can a human do that machines cannot do (and very much better).
1. Control the machines. It takes several minutes (10 - 30) to send a signal there from Earth, which is too late for most sorts of even minor emergency, and our robots are only good at
turtle slug speeds of 1 meter per hour and with all 6 wheels firmly on the ground. Which brings us to...
2. Scale the terrain. There's probably no other mechanism on Earth, hand-made or biological, that can climb from hundreds of meters below water to the summit of Everest, with very little equipment. Machines won't be there for decades.
3. Improvise. When tackling the Unknown, a machine can be designed for many contingencies, but a small stone lodged here, or a wire torn there, or a drop of oil clogging that - and it's disabled. A human on site can fix in minutes or hours, what ground crew at NASA will take 5 years (and a new mission) to handle.
In short, with currently available technology, a permanent base on Mars can perhaps be developed, if humans are on site, but probably not otherwise. Sure, we can land some ready-made habitats there, but nothing more permanent or safe. It would be tin cans all over again.
P.S. perhaps with an advent of 3d-printing, a proper concrete base could be created on Mars by machines... but it's still more fiction than science at this point.
Theft is still theft. Ad companies steal our internet bandwidth, electricity (yeah, those CPU cycles, they cost money), our brain bandwidth (when they flash, dance and sing) and our time (when they obscure the view). Or did they think only their time and bandwidth cost money?
I hereby judge them to perpetual adblock, no payroll.
It started back in Delphi 4 days. In fact, Kylix was Borland's answer to the budding project, in an attempt to preempt it. However, when the developers saw Kylix's going nowhere, Lazarus was revived. A very useful little gem, if you ask me, even though the IDE could use more polish.
Nor is it a security issue. It's a liability issue. Ad company has hosted and served a tainted ad due to botched vetting process or lack of one? Pay up! A site or a hosting platform has contracted a discreditable ad company? Pay up! Believe it or not, a single class action suit against an ad broker will end this issue much faster than best new antiviruses and securest browsers.
Babylon 5 was relatively huge compared to a galaxy-class starship, and, lacking holodecks, and being a civilian installation, had to provide recreational space as well. This explains the gardens. Also having lots of energy to spare (no warp engine to feed) helps.
...right after sending some mysterious photos of mysterious round objects on Pluto.
( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27824-bestever-images-of-pluto-reveal-baffling-pepperoni-slices.html )
Not suspicious at all, really, i'll just take my coat with neurolizer in the inside pocket.
If the only tablet you've ever tried to work on, is iPad.
What, do you honestly believe all other tablets are poor man's copies of the awesome apple-flavored fondleslab? Some fanboi.
At least don't generalize. Some tablets out there, while not being close to a laptop in terms of productivity, are actually an usable alternative. hint: Android.
Our brains are hardwired to seek patterns and try to predict trends and developments. When they succeed, especially if the task was difficult, we feel pleasure of the accomplishment. That's why we like music with complex, hard to predict, but nonetheless predictable rhythm. Same goes for images.
Both Delphi and Lazarus were, and still are, good for server-side development. True, most great libraries were 3rd-party (indy internet controls, were they called?), but the language/compiler supported 3rd-party memory management, full threading support and full OS API access, so, writing heavy-load servers in them was possible.
IF you make the beam rotate while it circles and IF the calculations on general relativity are correct, it might produce a reactionless gravity-like thrust along its major axis, due to unbalanced frame dragging in rotating spinning torus. This impulse drive is the closest you can get to star trek technology. If it works.
Obviously, I am using (and will continue using) "rounded corners" as an euphemism for all attempts to patent something painfully obvious, and then use it to prevent healthy competition. It is, indeed, a way of "cutting corners" in business, litigating instead of out-competing by creating a better product.
For the record, Samsung phones never looked anything like iPhones: square buttons, clearly visible Samsung logo, and, above all, usability and utility.
Traditionally, *nix servers were susceptible to worms, and Windows PCs - to viruses. The main difference is the former are "alive", and search and attack vulnerable systems autonomously, while the latter are "dead" and require user interaction in order to spread. This latest malware doesn't change the tradition: it's a worm.
A patent must provide a solution, that is
1. working (solving a specific problem)
2. innovative (this problem hasn't been solved this way before)
3. non-obvious (not immediately applied by any specialist encountering this problem)
Clearly, we've got multiple failures in the third point here, that causes most of the patent wars and grievances over the past years. It doesn't mean the system is totally broken, it means it's not supervised properly. Hint: hire better experts to work at patent offices. Reject obvious/overbroad patents.
Also expect 50% discounts for one-eyed pirates and up to 20% for short-sighted, color-blind and 10% for those suffering from photosensitivity.
Cheating and pirate viewing will be prevented by DRM chips in glasses and obligatory curtains in viewing room. Contact lenses will be considered DMCA-infringing and their production and sale will be prohibited. Same goes for binoculars.
Obviously, the endpoint ISP should prioritize the service that his clients use, that's why they pay for the internet access, after all. Oh the ISP doesn't have the capacity? So when it offered its users 100 mb/s, it lied? And now seeks compensations for that? How refreshing.
I am aware of data caps, they are part of the package for the service provider, both server-side (e.g. my 5$/mo included 100mb/s bandwidth, but 1tb monthly cap (which will obviously be exhausted after just several minutes of maximal load), and client-side (my mobile service has 1gb cap)). If I pay for more, I fully expect it will be available effectively, not on paper. Neither end-users nor service providers should accept overallocation, especially not codification of this fraudulent practice under laws and regulations. If it means more granular tariffs, that include QoS - so be it, but a service provider shouldn't be expected to get into separate agreements with all the planet's endpoint ISPs.
Every service provider (be it me with my VPS for $5/mo or CNN with its clusters or even Google with its private cables and data centers that span continents) have to pay for bandwidth. Smaller services buy it per Tb and per mbit/s, larger services... too.
Will this new set of rules require service providers to pay twice (to their ISP and to their endpoint user's ISP)? Theoretically, it should be up to my ISP to make sure the bandwidth I pay for is accessible to my clients, not up to me. And clients pay to their ISPs to have access to the Internet, not to their "favorite servers". The proper solution to net neutrality should be a mechanism for ISPs to re-distribute their incomes so that used bandwidths sum up, not new ingenious ways to extract money and make the already uneven playground totally inaccessible.
Oh no, the scientists are quite positive there is no advanced/intelligent life in Solar system.
I believe, that a technical civilization of our or better level can indeed be detected from light-years distance. Unless, of course, their data compression techniques have made all emissions look like white noise, in which case the scientists will discover another "hot gas giant", "micropulsar" or some other weird astronomical creature.
Given that Amazon drone is autonomous, and chaser drone is likely RF-controlled, a nice burst of radio jamming on proximity would do the trick.
Of course, it can be avoided by smarter drone tech. There's one small problem though: you can do far more illegal stuff if you own a well-equipped drone, no need to chase Amazon drones carrying worthless iPhones.
redacted the rest of the post: I won't give you drone crooks any ideas :3
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019