Comment Re:Conflicted btw 1st Amendment vs. Public Interes (Score 2, Insightful) 498
Measles kills.
Measles kills.
You use ((())) around certain words. For everyone's reference, this is a weird antisemitic text pattern used to identify to others who they believe are jews. Basically, this user is promoting the idea that jews are controlling the organizations that want to promote vaccines and stop these outbreaks.
It's not reducing their income by 18%, it's reducing their income per sale by 60%.
>Why not just imagine that you're falsely accused of a crime and executed on the spot? It's about as realistic. Yes, I can make up absurd stuff, too.
Like when people get shot by police for "not following orders" for being giving contradictory orders?
There's a big difference between "show my driver's license to an agent, who visually identifies me and will forget what I look like 5 seconds after I leave" versus "automated system that will store that data forever".
It's "just a photo" - that's tied to your identity. That automated systems can use to identify you. I make it sound scary because it honestly is. Imagine a world where "to protect the interests of the store", a system that you cannot opt out of, is used to identify "known thieves" in a store, and links back to national databases. Now imagine if you're falsely accused of a crime, and now you're tagged forever in this system and cannot shop anywhere. The setting is different (store vs airport), but, I could definitely foresee this being a future of this technology. It has moral and ethical concerns.
It's not this particular incident that bothers me, it's the implications of it all.
1) It means that the government is storing biometric data on everyone going through airports. This is probably not ephemeral and will be saved forever.
2) It means that Jet Blue and the US Government are in, some way, sharing biometric data about its users.
etc.
Having P = 0.05 has led to "P-Hacking". One example was the "chocolate" trial that had a small group eating different diets and tracked a whole slew of things, looking for a correlation in any of them. It happened to be that in the small group eating 1.5oz of chocolate and otherwise dieting lost slightly more weight than the group just dieting. Due to not having a specific goal in mind, and small sample size, they were bound to determine some sort of "positive correlation" somewhere, and there you go. If it hadn't been weight loss, it would have been heart rate or something else.
Exactly how would that be muddying the waters? It's fair to point out that issues affecting your system affect your direct competitors, too.
"some of these attacks" = the various speculative execution attacks, not the exact attacks in the article, numbnuts. My point was that this is a much further reaching issue than just some handful that have been found in Intel chips. This problem of leaking data via various speed enhancements type of attacks will probably be more widespread than we currently realize, and saying "don't buy intel, buy AMD because it's safe" is a naive and dangerous mindset to be in for this. We should be taking steps to mitigate this entire class of attack.
I read this part, in the linked original Spectre disclosure, did you?
Google Project Zero (GPZ) Variant 1 (Bounds Check Bypass or Spectre) is applicable to AMD processors.
GPZ Variant 2 (Branch Target Injection or Spectre) is applicable to AMD processors.
GPZ Variant 3 (Rogue Data Cache Load or Meltdown) is not applicable to AMD processors.
So, at least two variants of Spectre/Meltdown had to be mitigated on AMD platforms. My point still stands, it's not just an Intel thing, and switching to another processor isn't going to protect you from all variations of future attacks, just against a handful of intel specific ones that we know about right now. These are flaws inherent to our current processor designs and will probably take a few generations of processors to make secure.
AMD has had some speculative execution attacks that are viable against them, and there's probably undiscovered/undisclosed ones.
The correct answer is: don't run untrusted code, even from websites. Come up with better (slower) execution environments that enforce timings.
Reminder: AMD has been vulnerable to some of these attacks, and it's entirely possible that a variant of this attack would work against AMD. It's inherent flaws in our processor designs and security models for "jailed" applications.
There's probably AMD/ARM-specific attacks that haven't been discovered or disclosed.
Funny that, I dont see anywhere in the first amendment where it applies to companies restricting free speech, just the government. Maybe you can argue that we should accept that we do have a de facto common communication system and we should consider restricting when and where large companies can censor. But, as it stands, we do not have free speech protections from Facebook on Facebook.
Being an asshole isn't a protected class.
The last person that quit or was fired will be held responsible for everything that goes wrong -- until the next person quits or is fired.
