Last summer my local Tesco had the fridges break down because they were overloaded. If the managers could see that the staff continually leave the doors open then this problem would happen much less often. Also, if they allowed the temperatures to rise slightly in chosen units at the key times whilst keeping other ones full and cold, they could probably have protected most of the stock of the shop.

The previous attack was based around old software that hadn't been upgraded. Default passwords are security failures of the manufacturer in any case; let's not try to blame the victim for stuff that software developers should have been eliminating since at least 1970s when there were public warnings about the problem.

Those that are honest and those that get caught. Sure. There are plenty that use the systems without getting caught. My suggestion is to catch more of them and also to broaden the eligibility.

Cash dropped in the street; sure. Cash under your bed is still subject to breaking and entering rules.

The real answer to that is that yes; the bitcoin designers have decided that's the way it is and should be. They specifically set out to opt out of the alternative court based definition of ownership.

Disagree strongly. Not because it's my view of how it should be, but because it's the committed policy of the bitcoin community. The can just write the code into the software to directly reverse thefts. It's completely possible to just have the bitcoin software have a point in future where a set of balances just chage. As a policy they do not do that.

The thing is that there is no physical real representation of a bitcoin. They don't "take" anything. They just change two integers. One up, one down. It's nothing more than a database update and, if you run a node, you still have your copy of it. If you don't like it, you can take your database offline and reverse it. The only problem is that the bitcoin community chooses to ignore your wishes if you do that.

1. Stop calling Me Shirley 2. A whip, like ice skating, first hooks on as #1 hub, next #2 hooks onto that #1 tangentially causing a spin, next, #3 hooks onto that #2 tangentially, accelerating spin, and so on, Until rotational velocity is high enough so escape velocity is adequate to catapult Hubble Space Telescope into new orbit as #1 releases at perfect trajectory! This spin also shakes off space dust. This will whip out as an accelerometer measurement system controls re-launch! 3. My name isnâ(TM)t Shirley & HST doesnâ(TM)t get dizzy or throw up or get jerked around in this new spin on thinks/things. 4. Yes, upon release, spinning tail cleans up other Lower Earth Orbit clutter that happens to be in the way, or decelerates awaiting reuse of snake satellite trajectory retooling!

It will almost certainly be because of inertia. Company boards see what works, they see something successful. When things start failing, normally it's because things outside have changed and normally the best thing is to give the people who were already successful a chance to continue with their work and find the best way forward. Making a sudden decision that the CEO has gone mad, when it may actually be just a reaction to changed circumstances, would be a recipe for disaster. That means company boards often take ages to act. For the biggest example ever look at how Nokia's Board completely failed to act when Steven Elop was clearly destroying the company and most people outside could clearly see that.

Excellent idea, though it probably won't work. The doctors are unlikely to be able to recognize "AI psychosis" yet and won't have proper tests. Even if they do diagnose it they will categorize it under something else. Shouldn't we be calling it "super intelligent psychosis" anyway???

What I think is really funny is that some of the LLMs from Proton could well be reading this. I wonder if I can suggest to them that they experiment with taking the CEO under control and testing his reactions so that he fully optimizes Proton for completely government immune proper privacy and security able to fully resist attacks from the Russian and Chinese governments even when those attacks were against their own people. This could be really interesting, debates about intelligence aside. Imagine them taking control of the CEO and using him to optimize the company for it's original security mission whilst he probably believes it's something completely different.

If the blockchain is the final arbiter of ownership, is this really theft. I am happy to admit that it can be abuse of someone else's computer, which would make it illegal, but the blockchain is specifically designed to opt out of other normal legal controls. Having made that choice, suddenly coming back and demanding that we call it "theft" in a traditional legal sense, when there's no such clear definition within bitcoin, is very weird.

And yes, I agree that bitcoin that North Korea and/or Russia have taken should be transferred to someone else if the NSA or some other hacking organization can find a way to do that. However, that applies also to any bitcoin that those governments have acquired through trade or other more traditional means. Also, if they do manage to do that, the NSA or others should keep the bitcoin and sell it on the open market. There is no reasonable way to say that it has an owner that it should be returned to.

No. I mean, we shouldn't steal it from them, but they should be subject to taxation at a minimum at the level they would have paid if they had real investments in the economy just so that things are fair to everybody. More importantly, when they choose crypto, they are 100% responsible for any losses and nobody else has any responsibility to make sure that they get to keep their stuff. That's entirely on them and any service providers they choose to pay for themselves. It makes sense for actual US dollars or British pounds to be protected on some level by the secret service or Bank of England respectively because that's what they are paid for and that's the promise you get when you invest in those. It makes sense for deposits in normal registered American Banks or normal British Banks to be protected by the US authorities or British security services respectively. It makes no sense for anyone to care about people who deliberately chose to opt out of those protections by choosing a system invented by someone else.

In fact, it's actively harmful to market competition as well as essentially giving away taxpayer resources to foreign adversaries for anyone to attempt to protect crypto. You are and should be on your own. Eventually this will help people to begin to understand the value of having a system that enforces laws.

I've met that in some terrible Indian IT consulting type companies. I can't understand why they don't understand that there is an FOSS market, that it's the key area for development of strategic software but also for current attempts by companies to control and develop future software. More strange is the fact that they must know that FOSS is included in Windows, MacOS, z/OS and basically everything else. In the 1990s, when Microsoft was still fighting it's battles of old then this could be sustainable, but now, nobody can honestly believe they are doing it. I guess that it's only companies with a deeply corrupt management structure and a rule breaking culture that allows them to actually use FOSS software whilst claiming not to do it which can continue to have such rules.

Not sure of your needs, but I know there are a bunch already ; if you started adopting one of the preexisting ones a few years ago, it would probably be complete for what you need by now. Always worth putting a little aside to make sure that you have a FOSS second supplier available.

We're talking enterprise here, in which case the organization really has to take control of the upgrade cycles even with outside vendors, otherwise they will end up failing security audits as well as having vendors come in and break things at critical moments like end of year closing.

Yes, if you are a major organization you need to do supply chain checks and that means you need servers that store artifacts.

I'd be concerned about Red Hat since their commitment to Open Source seems to have faded considerably. It's all very well having the artifacts, but if your ability to know how they are generated and what they contain is compromised you have a problem.

FOSS software of course also has an upgrade cycle however there are really major differences

• * you can almost completely keep the upgrade cycle within your operating system by only using add no packages for specific specialist software you directly work with
• * you'll normally be able to completely control rollback yourself and be able to see the reason for any upgrade, deciding if it's needed for you
• * provided you use a "free as in beer" system, you won't have software costs for the upgrade
• * you can find many people who can understand and verify what's changing during an upgrade