Comment Re:in soviet russia we fail you! (Score 1) 112
Not so surprising that red-socialism and brown-socialism are almost the same.
Not so surprising that red-socialism and brown-socialism are almost the same.
With these disclaimers? Doubtful.
Well, MS made sure to live up to everybody's expectations by not only making this a security mess, but also a reliability mess! So much quality. So much winning. So much improvement.
Au contraire! For attackers, this is an exciting new feature that will offer endless new functionality and may finally prevent users from sabotaging their efforts by actually having a clue and being careful.
Feature Brings Data Theft and Malware Risks, and 'Occasionally May Hallucinate'
As a long time Linux user I can't tell if they talking about AI or just regular Windows.
Not any different from using Windows without AI.
While I understand your requirements and they do make sense, they are not realistic at this time. The technology is not mature enough for it and will remain not mature enough for quite some time. Hence something has to give. With Linux, you will need to do more system administration and occasionally fix some things manually. The good thing is that things generally stay fixed on Linux. With Windows you will get lack of security, reliability and, more and more, lack of usability. It will also break in new and unexpected ways from time to time.
Pick your poison.
Can you comment a bit more on the things you would want to change?
True. But cars are strongly regulated, even if often reactively, see, for example, the Tesla "autopilot" kills. A new car has to be fit for use by design or else the maker will get problems. There is no such requirement for Operating Systems and office software and I would argue that Microsoft has stopped being "fit for use" a while ago at least for non-experts.
And dangerous for dumb people. Remember that "malware installation" usually means lateral movement and then compromise of the whole organization these days, because AD security sucks and then it is often misconfigured on top of that.
I would not trust this on a hardened Linux with network access. Windows? Do you want to get hacked?
Also note that they only put that in there because the lawyers told them they had to. This means this technology represents a fundamental and systematic novel risk they do NOT have under control. The usual limitations of warranty are not enough. Providing or using this feature will likely fall under gross negligence. Microsoft can get out of the resulting liability by explicitly warning its users that this is not a feature you can use securely and that result quality is very much not ensured. Or in other words, this is a very dangerous toy, not a professional product.
That they feel they need to add a warning with this uncommon level of clarity is very telling. I am sure all the MS fans and all the nil wits will still ignore it. So let me add this, because it will be relevant: We told you so.
The UK has at least 20x as much wind power available than its current electricity consumption.
Where do you get that figure from? That sounds high, probably like a multiply-total-land-and-sea-area-by-energy-density kind of figure, and then build to the maximum density under optimal conditions.
Note that the Seagreen 1A (deep water) is about 0.1x the power density the power density as the London array (~25m deep). Your figures are I reckon predicated on everything built like the latter.
I think more realistic figures are somewhat smaller than that, though still above our current generation capacity. Maybe comparable to current generation plus automotive.
Keep projecting. I am sure it will help.
Renewables are undeniably a good idea. The energy is just right there.
Sure they are not without problems, and in a country the size of the UK, there's not enough to be energy independent, but even with that we should build more.
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D. Cohen