Hear, hear. Although I suspect you are being a tad unfair to Neanderthals.
11 posts • joined 24 Nov 2017
@LucreLout, according to google it's "Vacío, poco inteligente, supuestamente rapey, vacío de personalidad".
Better yet, according to Translation Party, equilibrium is reached at "Sexual assault in the intellectual property rights, individual personality vacuum shit".
I will no retire to the pub, and attempt to inject "Individual personality vacuum shit" into every conversation as my new favourite phrase.
Did I just log onto the wrong forum?
Ha ha, very funny. Diane Abbott (nearly) got scammed and (nearly) didn't spot it. Oh the hilarity.
Only I don't think it's very funny. These scams may be 'obvious' from the outside, but given that organised crime (which this must be) is extremely profit-focused, they must work.
The more we, as IT professionals, blame the victims for being 'thick', the more culpable we become. So, if you want a ranty political brouhaha, go head over to the Daily Mail. Otherwise how about a little advice, even if you can't manage any actual sympathy?
Starting with: Don't Panic. Find somebody you trust to take a look. Change your passwords (from a different device if possible). Talk about it - but not in a shouty, alarmist "oh gosh, we're all going to die" way.
Decoding the Chinese Super Micro super spy-chip super-scandal: What do we know – and who is telling the truth?
From the Bloomberg article:-
“Having a well-done, nation-state-level hardware implant surface would be like witnessing a unicorn jumping over a rainbow,” says Joe Grand, a hardware hacker and the founder of Grand Idea Studio Inc. “Hardware is just so far off the radar, it’s almost treated like black magic.”
The real question in all this is: Who is the logistics super-genius running all of this, and when are they going to get poached by Amazon?
Blood spilled from another US high school shooting has yet to dry – and video games are already being blamed
Re: A well regulated militia
The second amendment doesn't suggest that target shooting, hunting or animal control are "necessary to the security of a free State". A well regulated militia is. The second is compelling the population to organise into militia, and prohibiting the state from banning the tools (guns) a militia would need in times of crisis.
As a compromise, you could say a .22 bolt action rifle could be held without militia membership, but I think exceptions generally brake rules rather then improve them.
A well regulated militia
The first 4 words of the second amendment may provide a solution. Suppose each gun club represents a formal militia, licensed to train and support members in the use of various classes of weapons (handguns, shot-guns, semi and fully automatic, bolt-action etc).
Each US citizen is given an option at, say, 17. Either opt-in to a militia or opt-out. If you opt in the militia is responsible for accepting you, training you and assisting you in keeping weapons and ammo safe. If you opt-out you still pay a fee, used to subsidise the militias on a per-capita basis. Only militia are authorised to sell weapons. If you are rejected by all militia you are exempt from the opt-out fee, but you can't legally purchase a weapon.
The militia, not the individuals, are responsible for the weapons supplied. If a weapon is miss-used the militia can face revocation of the license to supply that class of weapon, or in extreme cases criminal charges.
So, the government does not prohibit individuals from holding weapons - the people do. The militia are empowered and encouraged to ensure the safe use and storage of weapons, with a strong peer-support element. Opt-out citizens could not be accused of leaving the defence of the nation to the opt-ins' because they will subsidising the militias.
Pick your battles.
For me, this is Just Wrong (tm). No matter that it's not funny, potentially confusing and arguably offensive, it's just the wrong thing, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. II RS wants to get involved in this debate - fine, let him - but hiding it in the glibc docs? Really? Has there ever been a Daily Mail or Fox News headline screaming "Outrage at glibc developers...."
I'm all for humour in docs - if only to keep my inner Donald Trump amused while I try and learn something, but politics disguised as crap satire? If I have to think harder about the joke than how 'mkfifo()' works then there is a problem.
It's all in the timing.
Long ago, as a college techie I experienced similar experiences almost hourly towards the end of term. Panicky students would rush into the office with cries of "IT'S NOT PRINTING!!!!".
One of us would nod, finish the current Doom Level, drink some more coffee, saunter into the hall, stop for a chat, buy a mars bar from the vending machine and then - with almost supernatural timing - not quite step into the computer suite when the ageing LaserJet III would finally finish warming up and star spewing the 15 copies of the coursework they managed to queue up.
Ahh, those were the days.
That's not what he said.
Linus didn't say that security holes should only be fixed after exploitation. He said that the Kernel shouldn't kill processes that behave unexpectedly. These are two entirely different things, and should not be confused. Just because an application does something odd (from the kernel's point of view) doesn't mean it's a security flaw that is being exploited. More importantly, killing the process does not fix the underlying problem - or make it any less exploitable. Worse still is that this approach creates the impression of doing something without actually fixing anything - just because a badly written (but honest) application get's nailed doesn't mean that a well written exploit would be.