Well, this is kind of a general complaint, isn't it?

These days, consumers really have no clue about ANYthing. How much research do you do into anything you buy? How much research do you do into the food you buy? the car you drive? the place you live? the place you work? the place that holds your life savings?

If you're like most people, probably zero.

Lets face it, we've gotten used to our omnipresent government regulating things to be safe for us, that we simply assume everything we see on the shelf is safe, whether it's been certified or not. Even when it is certified, you cannot make that assumption, as the mountains of daily FDA recalls tell us.

Consumers need to take responsibility for their purchases, and demand real testing and certifications of products, not the fake feel-good veneer we have now.

There should have been clearer separation between content creation, content delivery and "last mile", each handled, potentially, by a different company. With the way multicast/broadcast distribution works, content delivery tier would handle multicast/broadcast infrastructure. Historically though, this is not how the technology and processes have evolved, obviously, so we have to deal with the system as it is.

I think you are being overly simplistic and shortsighted by thinking a separate or community-owned last mile will solve these problems. Who would hook into it, how, at what physical location, and at what cost? Who will manage and enforce the separation of networks and standards?

... and?

Yes, thank you ACs, we still know squat all about the ozone hole, except that it has mysteriously disappeared, something you are causally linking to some minor human action, which was to take decades to be implemented and play out. Maybe it went away because of forces greater than the human activity of the western hemisphere?

The same could be said of global warming. While CO2 is increasing, temperatures are decreasing globally, and northern polar ice is growing. Glaciers aren't melting, and Antarctic ice isn't shrinking one foot. There is well proven and documented research that shows temperature increase as correlating to CO2 concentration increase. We could roll back CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels, and that would reduce global temperatures less than .5 degrees. The thing with CO2 all the alarmists are missing is that it has very rapidly diminishing effects the more of it you stack. We could add twice as much as is there already and you would barely be pick out the temp difference form the noise. Maybe something else is at work here, hmm? I'm looking at that big fiery ball in the sky, the source of nearly 100% of the heat input into the planet.

I could have also thrown in there acid rain, and how all our buildings and trees would melt one day because of it. Although it was certainly a measurable problem, like global cooling, ozone hole, global warming, and unlike them was almost entirely attributable to human activity, however the dire predictions were again simply hysteric and wildly exaggerated, making a mockery of the whole thing, and confusing the issues.

We have enough problems on this planet that we don't need to make up new ones to spend money on. There is real air, water and ground pollution happening all over the place. It is much more immediate and much more dangerous to the environment and humans than any fantasy we've come up with to date. Except we don't need a world government and oppressive regulations regime to solve them, and it's not sexy like polar bears and going green, so no go on that front.

Memory protection. handle1 and handle2 are obviously within the process's own memory, and can be reused. But if the handle points to some memory space (buffer, handler, kernel struct, whatever), that the process does not own (regardless if it did in the past), the access should be disallowed. A process can't just willy nilly read and write whatever memory it wants. I can't just set handle1 to a random value and start writing away to it corrupting something else.

In your example, though, handle2 could not be 1000, because the program has not closed handle1 yet, so as far as it knows it is still valid. When it tries to write to it, however, that should fail, because the kernel internals it was pointing to have been flushed and closed. If those internals have been re-used by another process, the access should be disallowed.

That is asinine. Why would the handle be reused in the exact memory space, and why would the original process still have access to it?

Except with TPM, the owner is untrusted, and thus a potential attacker. If you have a TPM computer, and YOU want to trust it, you have to get the key out of the hardware.

Exactly, although I echo the sentiment the presentation could have been better.

Everywhere we turn there are people who think they are smart telling us what to do and what to think, because they know what is best for us. They're the experts with years of training, and we know nothing. Do not question the high priests, do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

This is just following the general trend of late, culminating in "this time, it's different, trust us". We think we're smarter, we're better, we have more tools, we have more knowledge, we have more insight, and that things are somehow fundamentally different, and that today we can fix all the problems that our predecessors have been unable to fix in centuries past. In the end, the more we "fix", the more we break.

As a lay person, I know we cannot predict what the weather will be like next week, and all I see around me is global climate hysteria. I don't see science, I don't see deliberation, I don't see openness, I don't see debate. I see politics and dogma. Enough of this "you're not smart enough to understand so just trust me" nonsense. Enough of this "science by consensus". It doesn't exist, and it's not scientific anyways even if it did.

Show everyone the science, open up the process, accept opposing data (heck, accept ALL legitimate data to begin with), interpretations and views, so we can all see why it is that we need to undertake a complete reorganization of economy, society and personal life, at a cost of trillions of dollars and undoubtedly much resulting misery and suffering.

It was global cooling and visions of frozen wastelands and a new ice age. Where did that go? Then it was the ozone hole that would fry anyone not wearing SPF1000 sunblock. Where did that go? Then it was global warming and sea level rise that would make disaster movies seem like documentaries. Where did that go? Now we have the amorphous all-encompassing "climate change".

But THIS TIME, it's different. Really. This time, we're smarter, and we have better science, and we've learned, and we know better, we know for sure. Trust us.

Well, sorry. You're gonna have to do better than that.

Oh, what a cop out!

Most of us don't care about the care and feeding of ponies because.... most of us don't have ponies to care for and feed.

On the other hand, most of us do have computers.

Most of us also have cars, and even though most of us do not have mechanical engineering degrees, we know the basics of maintaining them, either ourselves or having someone else do it, because we know negligence can be very expensive. Using public resources to bail out computer user mistakes due to ignorance and negligence will clearly not solve the problem. Like any handholding or subsidizing, it only makes the problem worse in the long run.

That's blowback.

The internet was not made to provide for your income. It does not owe you anything. It is up to you to figure out how to use the internet to make money, and if the majority (or large portion) of the internet has vetoed ads, the message seems pretty clear.

There is plenty of professional-quality content available today, some of it surviving just fine without an ad in sight, amongst a sea of ad-supported content. If I were you, I would not ask how ad-supported content will survive without ads, but how non-ad-supported content thrives. How can one make money, even without an apparent revenue stream.

Most of the professional-quality ad-free content is basically a giant ad itself. An ad for the services, expertise, knowledge, skills and product of the writer who produced it.

That's just one way. You're looking for the easy way out, because "that's how it's always been and I cannot imagine any other way". But you're wrong.