woodman

26 ms·

211.
by woodman 10y ago
Is it not true that you did not intend to answer a rhetorical question with a rhetorical question as a negative confirmation, is it?
212.
by woodman 10y ago
You aren't talking about the San Bernardino iPhone 5c that had a A6 series CPU which predated the introduction of secure enclave are you?
213.
by woodman 10y ago
While trying to understand what attribution means to you I accidentally tested your skills in reading comprehension.
214.
by woodman 10y ago
The diagrams show that the human hand ends up in the "wrist" of the robotic arm. If that is too close for comfort then you could go with a fictitious MSDF Type 303 from gits [0]. But I'd rather have my arm in the load beari
215.
by woodman 10y ago
> The danger is a state monopoly on information. While the monopoly makes the situation worse, what you are suggesting depends on the state being subject to some form of universal justice - which isn't the case. States pull that so
216.
by woodman 10y ago
> ...we need to get started on building a society... Well the "comfortable" part of that makes it impossible, because of the whole chilling effect thing surround private thoughts and activities necessary for building a basic pe
217.
by woodman 10y ago
I'll give it one more shot. You are a child at the store and you ask your mommy for a lollipop, she hands you one and pays the cashier... who bought the lollipop?
218.
by woodman 10y ago
> Maybe we just need a "hard logout" option for people who want everything killed. Maybe we need a way for people to lock their screens without traditionally logging out... wondered the person who implemented the functionality
219.
by woodman 10y ago
"people" aren't "censoring", they don't have the power to do so. In this specific case the state acts at the behest of those who fill out a USPS Form 1500. It is complicated when you consider what is actually
220.
by woodman 10y ago
It is a lot more complicated than that unfortunately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_v._United_States_Post_Of... The consideration of a "captive audience" is relevant to the topic under discussion, prior
221.
by woodman 10y ago
Thanks for the tip, I'll give it a try. I'll honestly be surprised if it makes a perceivable dent though, the root cause of the problem being carrier route level sortation discounts. They blast apartment complexes indiscriminate
222.
by woodman 10y ago
That is the same justification used by junk mailers, and the USPS actively courts them - because they are the customer, not you. I only check my mailbox once a week, and only because it quickly gets stuffed with junk and then the USPS star
223.
by woodman 10y ago
That is false. Sidney Blumenthal emailed her signals intelligence (which is top-secret at a minimum) on her unsecure server, after stripping classification markings. This has been covered pretty well, and if you want to see for yourself t
224.
by woodman 10y ago
Because they hide under bridges not of their own making and accost unwary passersby.
225.
by woodman 10y ago
> ...everything bad comes from people. You forgot the Devil, he gets blamed every so often.
226.
by woodman 10y ago
Why stop in the early 2000's? Surely this is all superficial if we avoid the real issue - the control of privileged information! It should be obvious how unproductive this line of thinking is, eventually we'd find ourselves deba
227.
by woodman 10y ago
Do we need to preface every discussion with a list of others' bad behavior? I imagine that would distract for the topic under discussion... and you wouldn't want to do that would you?
228.
by woodman 10y ago
Part of the whole security clearance process is instruction on detecting misclassification, so the :%s/SECRET/SUCRETS/g defense doesn't work. At least 22 emails where later classified as top secret, there is no way to
229.
by woodman 10y ago
Hmm, that is when I got out - two boot drops, both seemed fine. The infantry is much less likely to draw underachievers though, so we'd be less likely to see the low quality recruits.
230.
by woodman 10y ago
The guy who was also in the discharge unit, getting kicked out... we'll I guess that is as credible as an internet stranger's personal experience.
231.
by woodman 10y ago
> ...at a time when the army had trouble getting anyone literate... In 2007? Where are you getting that? For the USMC 01-09 were glory years when it came to enlistment quality, so much so that they tightened requirements - and practica
232.
by woodman 10y ago
Ask the child to draw it, you'll notice the problem. One description makes me think that the glass has some new treatment, the other makes me think that there is a new structure within the bulb.
233.
by woodman 10y ago
> Why are they gaining traction and nobody I know even knows about them... This reminds me of the old "How did X get elected? I don't even know one person who would vote for X!" It speaks much more about the individual t
234.
by woodman 10y ago
> (and the advertisers won't change their metrics because of them) uh. That isn't what I was doing - one party's act in self interest can benefit third parties (even if accidentally)... like electing to not set yourself o
235.
by woodman 10y ago
> ...so firewalls/airgaps/SPI should detect and prevent tampering. I think that is a naive view of AMT... Nope, I'm talking about scale. You'd need to signal (paint with radar, send a packet, dip the power in morse c
236.
by woodman 10y ago
I'm not saying that AMT is no big deal, I'm saying that an intentionally weakened RNG is pretty much the worst thing ever. All crypto prior to targeting would be vulnerable: tor, bitcoin, pgp - for every machine leaving the facto
237.
by woodman 10y ago
Ok, I can be more explicit: If the funded research is bad -- and it is an area of interest (political, social, industrial, etc) -- then it won't survive for long. So you are correct, if Philip Morris funded bad research relating to th
238.
by woodman 10y ago
I'd argue that a factory backdoored RNG would be infinitely more dangerous. An AMT exploit wouldn't be passive, and it wouldn't weaken every crypto operation proceeding the time of the attack. Between the two, which do you
239.
by woodman 10y ago
It has been several years since I dug into it, so I can really only offer keywords: AMT[0], which is a component within ME[1]. Also see https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5380_-_en_-_saal_2_-_201312291... EDIT: I forgot to
240.
by woodman 10y ago
I'm sure that those involved have very interesting rationalizations, but I don't think that it should be viewed from an ethics perspective. Expecting people to behave against their own self interest in the short term, for the goo

More ›