> The article says it's nothing to do with the OS, but any excuse, eh?

That is not what it says. What it says is:

'
"Even if the CompuSafe were running Windows 10, it wouldn't have changed the exploit that we will be demonstrating," Salazar said.
'

That's not "nothing to do with the OS". That's "any version of Windows".

The thing is, no one is combining the mine's logic of "acquire target near me, that is enemy" with the cruise missiles "fly to externally chosen target", and thinking that's a good idea. With the tech becoming just good enough now, the fact that these are being smooshed together is the new thing. They'll be sold as "thing that identifies enemies and attacks them", when in fact they will be "thing that can pick out humans and kill them at distance"- a mine that isn't content to chill for a few decades before deactivating, being taken out, or attacking some innocent.

> What stops a 15 year old script kiddie that hacks a battalion of these things and sends them on a rampage?

I wanted to make a joke, because this is a great setup to one, but it frankly won't be funny in a few years.

The parts of the world that seem automated, are already exploited, no exceptions. The biggest and glaring sign of this is SWATting. Hackers identify that the government is responding with overwhelming terror force to phone calls. Hackers "hack" this system by simply spoofing a dangerous scenario. Bad things ensue.

This is a fully automated system- but every element of the automation is humans. From getting the call to parsing it to responding with force to deploying officers in full military gear to apartments and houses, everyone is doing their job. And it's broken. What's the piece of automation needed to exploit this, what's the real hack? It's the telephone or other comms device. This narrows the bandwidth enough that the barrier to entry drops from "trained actor" to "rando asshole". It also removes the needed "now escape" part of the plan. Just that ONE piece of tech- the phone- is enough to break the system, and because it wasn't happening when the police weren't geared for unseating nests of aliens or whatever the fuck all that shit is for, they built the house of cards on bad tech.

And this will keep happening. Every piece of automation, every thing that removes a chain of humans from the equation in the name of efficiency, dramatically ups these risks.

You should research how this goes down before posting. This isn't a shitpost, but it's based on some misunderstandings. The overall points about how these things encourage killing when we would not be willing to otherwise is a good one, but bullshit like "guy sitting safely in a chair" is just meant to rouse emotions

No sympathy eh? I think you and Windows 10 are gonna have an amusing and tempestuous relationship.

It sounds awful. Automatic updates sounds great, because it's a default. And you can turn it off. Windows 10 moves heaven and earth to remove the parts that let you turn it off. How does that sound great to anyone, at any point, ever?

Sh! Quiet or the guy with copyright on recursion will come around here.

I dunno, I want to believe, but all I have is this anecdotal statement on slashdot to go by...

> The security guard (they carried guns back then) wouldn't let me in because I was wearing short.

You need to also wear the other short. Just one short is crazy territory.

One wonders why you wonder about a technical post on a technical site using a technical term?

This is pretty silly. The gender restrictions will probably have to go, because it will be hyper lulzy if they don't.

No, the security risk was in their code.

Note this well:
> Ideally, you correct the flaw and thank the contributor.
> If the contributor posted code that exploits the problem, it's reasonable to remove part of the post, PM the poster, etc. This can eliminate the downtime. You also mark that there was an edit there, etc. This is also acceptable.
> You could instead delete the whole post, and also PM OP, thanking him and asking him to keep it on the D/L until patch day, at which point you acknowledge his help in public, and ideally reinstate the post. This is a bit alarmist, but isn't loopy.
> You could instead delete the whole post and give no reason. This is shitty- you are trying to deny the poster credit, and you aren't obviously resolving the problem.
> You could instead delete the whole post, give no reason, and BAN THE POSTER. This is for crazy fuckers only, and is what OP said happened to him. That's nuts.

"The strength of reddit is in the community and not in the content."

There's no reddit community.

Coontown hates primarily Blacks, and also to some extent Jews. Don't like it? Why, there's another sub that hates primarily Jews, and also to some extent Blacks. See, diversity! Meanwhile, there's a zillion political boards, each with their own slant. That hate each other. Then there's this whole Gender War going on, and there's a bunch of red pill subs that all say they hate reddit, and there's the SRS sub that hates everyone ON reddit, and that is NOT a fucking community. That's a deliberately set of tribal boundaries. It's meant to start fights, which it does.

Reddit doesn't have a community- it's an extended melee where some people haven't been punched enough to stay down yet.

The thing is, those moderation systems are both MORE COMMON and are SUPERIOR. The issue is simpler: the reddit style of setup is there *to create conflict*. Slashdot is an internet town square, where the crier stops by and hear-ye hear-yes and everyone talks about the topic for a bit. Stackexchange is an internet guild hall, where you keep your conversation on topic and those with the most credibility (usually deserved, but sometimes not) get a louder voice and longer time at the podium.

But reddit is an internet dueling ground where everyone goes to face off. For every two people having some internet fight, a zillion more watch. The reason it exploded wasn't because it was a superior discussion system- nerds made better ones at the dawn of the net, and they are still here. The reason it exploded is that they figured out how to play their users against each other. Reddit's system is awful by design, because their goal isn't to make for conversation, it's to make for clicks and fights and play off that end of the emotional spectrum.

I think he's saying that the are claiming to have free speech, but this is trivially falsifiable. That they have things that they'll ban you for, raw speech.

And the other side has even more ammo- once it is obvious that they *have* a decency standard, the question then becomes WHY THE FUCK IS IT SET WHERE IT IS?