Comment Re:Damn!!! (Score 1) 226
It's OK. The alternate Kate Upton has really let herself go and she's become the alternate Melissa McCarthy.
It's OK. The alternate Kate Upton has really let herself go and she's become the alternate Melissa McCarthy.
Ah. Unpopular opinion and smidgen of fact labeled "troll".
Mazel tov!
Further proof that anyone can have a mix of crappy hardware and software cause them problems.
Can I get a loud "Well DUH!" from anyone who's life isn't consumed by rampant brand fanboyism?
Because I'm CERTAIN that it's MUCH safer to just leave storage casks sitting OUT IN THE OPEN IN A PARKING LOT at the plant. Right?
No possibility of ground water contamination there right?
So, a field of solar panels is more efficient. Hurray!
Lemme just stop by and get a gallon of solar!
Oh wait!
Maybe, if we had a grid and road system that supported wholesale, on-the-go electrification of cars, this would be more important.
But, with our current infrastructure, while biofuels offer less energy density, they result in a product that's appropriate for the uses required.
I am also a Mathematician and none of this adds up.
I am a Noetic Scientist, and I think you're all crazy.
There are reasons beyond the "4 GNU freedoms" to oppose these devices being installed into all new computers.
I'll bet your not so sanguine about having a device installed in your car that allows for remote shutoff, location reporting and monitoring of your driving habits.
Because the real question is not "what is so controversial?" but rather "how secure are these systems?" It's not about what a sysadmin can do with the power to remotely turn on your computer, but what some miscreant can do with that power when he inevitably gets his hands on it. And the computer in question is not the one on your desktop at work or your business laptop (that your company paid for anyway), but the one you have at home for your taxes/banking/personal communications.
At some point, you have to start trusting people/organizations/companies.
What you're really saying is, "You don't have a choice, so just suck it up, princess. Privacy is so 20th century."
No, you don't have to trust people/organizations/companies who have not earned your trust. You are the one paying. Use the power you have as a consumer. Weaponize your purchasing power.
And always, always reserve the right to just say "Nope, I don't need it, I don't want it, and I'll find another way."
This is where the whole notion of risk management comes into play.
Now, if you're a world famous nuclear scientist working on spurting-edge fusion power experiments, a stupid-rich CEO of an unpopular company or a politician with even more dirty laundry than your AVERAGE political hack, you're probably a FAR bigger target than "Joe Familyguy".
I'm not saying "don't secure your shit.
But at some point, the risk/return equation simply becomes unacceptable for most people.
Technically, if you disassembled your machine, broke it down to component parts, sealed each part inside an air/water-tight safe (a different safe for every part), and buried each part in a location only known to you in a concrete and rebar cage. Your shit would be REALLY fucking secure.
But actually using the system (let alone accessing the data) becomes an unacceptable hassle.
So, at some point, there's ALWAYS tradeoffs between security and usability. ALWAYS. Anyone telling you different is selling you a line of high-grade BULLSHIT.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.