cf141q5325

No one is suggesting to just reach for your phone.

You are selecting for people who make it impossible to realistically plan deadlines.

The security as new functionality is not really an issue to keep PCs running relatively safe. The argument that ECC is a new functionality and not a security patch comes to mind. That was a fair argument and people still had RSA. The underlying security breaking is not really an issue today as far as I see it.

The actual deal breaker are bugs who can be exploited and need to be fixed. And while its unfair to expect bug free software, fixing them is not new functionality.

The update fails and gets automatically reverted. I dont think you can get the monthly security updates without it, at least that was the case with the April rollout. Since its not immediately clear why the update fails, you can even now find quite a few people looking for help to diagnose the error online.

edit:

Here some context

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/kb4474...

its an easy fix for for dualboot if you can just replace grub with mbr again, but people with disc encryption are rather screwed it seems.

Its especially unfortunate since KB4474419, the sha2 update for Windows Seven, defacto disabled updates for quite a few people with dualboot or encrypted system partitions in mid March.

This is a very serious issue by far not limited to facebook and youtube. The problem goes much further then private companies not wanting the content on their site. Its very much motivated by a push of governments to purge terrorism propaganda and stuff that could be used to radicalize people.

The best example is, or better was, reddits /r/syriancivilwar. The subreddit collected all and every information available on the conflict, from every side. This brought them in direct conflict with reddit admins, who banned multiple users for linking to terrorism propaganda, namely ISIS videos and AMAQ statements, the ISIS news agency. The subbredit is now a shell of its former self because its reduced to a propaganda platform for factions which are socially acceptable, instead of a place to document the war and its atrocities.

It however doesnt stop there. The content wasnt hosted at reddit but literally anywhere where there is a hope it might not be immediately taken down. From piracy favored streaming services to archiv.org mirrors. Which all get taken down for distributing terrorism propaganda instead of violating the TOS.

When you hear about terrorism propaganda, there is a good chance we are talking about not just evidence of warcrimes, but also material that is important to understand how people can get radicalized. And how to counter that propaganda. People at risk of radicalization can still access the material while the public as a whole looses the insight into the mind of those people entirely. And the people at risk drift off into echo chambers. And for a lack of information we are doing nothing to counter that propaganda, quite the opposite. I doubt the media at large could have done ISIS a bigger favor by their coverage of focusing simply on the barbarism of the videos. They missed the point entirely, the barbarism was very much a part of ISIS propaganda. The reporting was great for getting views, but only reenforced the people who already entered the echochambers. And hoping on a purely military solution sounds absolutely naive to me. Its very much a task for society as a whole to watch out that people dont drop into those echo chambers and get radicalized.

Framing this issue as "AI gone wrong" misses the point entirely. The content would also have been deleted by a human. And with the given political development, its not overly pessimistic to assume that people publicly hosting content will be forced to remove any such content immediately or face prosecution. Which only helps with getting reelected for signaling to combat terrorism instead of actually doing anything against terrorism.

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but the situation looks really dire to me. I had hoped that we as a society had learned our lesson about book burning. And the issue is not a new one. Mein Kampf is still not readily available in Germany for the "fear that it might turn people into nazis". Serdar Sommuncu made the only reasonable thing here and started touring Germany reading from Mein Kampf as well as famous propaganda speeches to show how ridiculous they are. There is nothing special about them. There isnt some hidden insight in those books that turn people into Nazis. But our treatment of them might convince people at risk that there has to be something about them, or they wouldnt be banned in the first place. I fear very much the same development from the array of far right terrorists with their manifests. Instead of the rambling of lunatics they are it gets treated as something that is dangerous as it apparently might convince people.

>Doing these kind of reckless stunts just to get Sweden to side with Nato was definitely not needed. Sweden was already on Nato's side, and everyone knew that.

This was Sweden under Olof Palme. They made quite a point of staying neutral and were far from joining the Western Block, let alone NATO. You are making it sound as if they were West Germany.

>That just means that he can neither refute nor affirm whatever has been said.

I agree and wouldnt expect anything else from the current Defense Minister. I would be more interested what the then Defense Minister had to say on the issue.

>That means that you are in fact arguing that the government invited Nato to invade Sweden without letting the armed forces know.

If I had to guess, I would say that the Swedish Government was not informed and the US only said this now to not damage the relationship with the current Swedish government. I would read the comment of the Defense minister the same way. But who knows, maybe some parts of the Swedish Government, having a harder pro NATO stance were involved. But that is a conspiracy theory. But who in the Swedish government knew what is rather irrelevant, as the population of Sweden was confronted with a horde of news reports of Soviet submarines probing the Swedish coastal defenses creating the atmosphere of a dooming Soviet invasion.

>I don't understand your interest in this topic nor why it's so important for you to show that it wasn't the Soviet union

You misunderstand my point, the interesting part is not that the Soviets didnt do it, but that the US and UK manufactured a cold war panic in Sweden, likely to get them to join NATO and drop their neutral stance. Given quite alot of fearmongering in the press yet again, thats a rather important thing to remember. If someone from the Atlantic Bridge tells me that that whale is part of some Russian weapons tests I am a bit skeptic about their motivation. Sure we know Russia does conduct those tests, but we also know that some people really like their anti Russian fearmongering to get people running for cover in the arms of NATO under the command of the big brother overseas. A more sober and realistic reporting would generally be great.

It doesnt really matter what I claim, what we know is sufficient and we have that already quoted here.

> Classified documents point to covert US and UK activity. Former US secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger stated that Western submarines operated ‘regularly’ and ‘frequently’ in Swedish waters in order to ‘test’ the Swedish coastal defences, and former British navy minister Sir Keith Speed confirms the existence of such operations. Royal Navy submarine captains admit having carried out top-secret operations in Swedish waters, and that a member of Cabinet signed approval for every single operation

as well as

>Many military officials and politicians said they had never heard of the NATO exercises.

>``You need some sort of agreement to do a thing like this. But I know nothing of such an agreement,″ said Admiral Per Rudberg, head of the navy from 1978 to 1984.

>Current Defense Minister Bjoern von Sydow said he was surprised, but added, ``I have no reason to question what a former U.S. defense secretary is saying.″

To summarize, we know that both the US and the UK have carried out submarine incursions into swedish waters, the US on a "frequent and regular base". We also know, that the head of the Swedish Navy did not know these operations, "to test Swedish costal defenses" took place.

So unless you are arguing the source (which source, AP?) is doctored, I really dont understand what you are trying to do with Occam's razor.

On the implications of these informations: If we are arguing about the effect on the Swedish population as well as on the government, I think it would be fair to summarize the period as Sweden getting more and more nervous with one sub sighting after another. Which at the time was assumed to be soviet subs by the public, leading to an increased fear of a soviet invasion and a more positive view on becoming a NATO member. Sweden is a democracy, the populations view is rather important.

The swedish government didnt tell their population which saw dozens of submarines and went in to a panic expecting a soviet invasion.

Again, the whole quote:

>Many military officials and politicians said they had never heard of the NATO exercises.

>``You need some sort of agreement to do a thing like this. But I know nothing of such an agreement,″ said Admiral Per Rudberg, head of the navy from 1978 to 1984.

>Current Defense Minister Bjoern von Sydow said he was surprised, but added, ``I have no reason to question what a former U.S. defense secretary is saying.″

The head of the navy didnt know.

The Swedish government back then attributed only two of these submarines to the soviets, one of them being the stranded Whiskey sub. The second case was also later disputed.

I think you understand that the author isnt talking about the Whiskey sub being invented or staged.

To "most", the sentences after your quote is the interesting one.

> Classified documents point to covert US and UK activity. Former US secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger stated that Western submarines operated ‘regularly’ and ‘frequently’ in Swedish waters in order to ‘test’ the Swedish coastal defences, and former British navy minister Sir Keith Speed confirms the existence of such operations. Royal Navy submarine captains admit having carried out top-secret operations in Swedish waters, and that a member of Cabinet signed approval for every single operation

Here is a different source if you prefer that.

https://www.apnews.com/f0a9cfd83c430978e6545b902f1160d2

Given the region, I first thought of the Swedish submarine scare and cold war panic in the 80s. Sweden, a non NATO member which didnt want to join NATO, had repeated incursions by submarines into their waters which were attributed to the soviets. It seems that wasnt the case for most subs. Instead the likely culprits were often NATO vessels.

Ola Tunander worte a Book about the incidents, called "The Secret War Against Sweden: US and British Submarine Deception in the 1980s". http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/library/tunander.pdf

I would assume it was a paragraph about membership itself being prosecuted. Parts of the US seem to have a similar concept https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/gang-affiliat...

>Gang Participation: Some states, such as Georgia and Texas, make it unlawful for anyone to form, associate with, or profit from a street gang.

Germany has such a thing with membership in a criminal or terrorist organization in §129 stgb. Being part of such an organization is in itself a crime. So individual members dont have to commit any crimes them self to be prosecuted. How ever I only know of the paragraph being used against terrorists, as well as outlawed political associations.

>Using a required course as a trolling arena

This is actually the most important point of this case in my opinion. Dont screw over students by going off topic in mandatory courses. Stick to the course material, your ego is not more important then putting an entire course of students at a disadvantage. Mandatory courses are mandatory for a reason, its so the students learn the basic foundation of their field of study. You dont get academic freedom on your mandatory lectures, as your day doesnt consist of only mandatory lectures. Create an elective course on the topic if its interessting to you. Profs who do this are the perfect example for why tenure is a problematic idea. Getting rid of a Professor who is sabotaging required courses is a monstrous task and generations of students have to suffer under the ego of one person.

>and supplied chemical during WWII for the Nazi.

IG Farben did a lot more then that. Among others buying people from concentration camps for medical studies which none of the "testsubjects" survived.

With manufacturer not being US manufacturers the size of Boeing? Personally I would doubt that.

Is there any example where that happened?

>Similarly, gentrification is about people wanting to pay higher rent to live in a nicer neighborhood.

Not the same people though. The quote from the article holds true for tenants who cant afford higher rents. Gentrification is generally a processes of displacement. There the old saying, that graffiti tags keep the rent low holds true.

Its definitely widespread, I didnt want to imply it was just your family. There is a large group that cant handle admin rights responsibly. I just dont think general restrictions are in order here. We should much rather educate this group instead of giving up ownership over our devices. Especially since we dont have the appstore model out of security considerations, but because monopolists want to keep people in walled gardens. Ownership of your device is to great of a good to give it up in the name of security.

To be fair, complain about your family, not the desktop model. Its like babyproofing, the equivalent of no one beeing allowed to buy a steakknife because some people are not grown up enough to handle one carefully.

edit: Its ofcourse a difficult subject, like with your parents getting too old to drive and not recognizing it, but after all not a technical but a societal problem.

The Chinese government is a dictatorship that restricts its citizens access to websites which dont follow their regulations. I dont see what your point is supposed to be here.

>Stuxnet also had careful target selection.

The NSA also had stuff like eternalblue lying around instead of getting it patched, the polar opposite being responsible. I doubt that there is such a thing as responsible hacking by state actors. They know of and are actively exploiting weaknesses that are a danger to all of us.

Only 600 were targeted. Stupid question, but is there a scenarios where this isnt a state actor? Who would throw away already infected machines.

There is some but its extremely rare. In Germany you for example have the Hambacher Forst, where parts are as old as 700 years. Its scale is however lacking

https://www.dw.com/image/45302299_401.png

Generally you have "untouched" as in oldgrowth/primary forest and not being a secondary forest, which takes a few hundred years.

To be fair, roundup has a magical characteristic in only starting to cause cancer once Monsanto was no longer a US company.

Some German states own parts of VW and clearly would prefer to believe it to be honest mistake VW has learned from. No one should be surprised that the Deutsche Bank are criminals either. I dont think those cases are anything more then corruption preventing proper prosecution. Big corporations simply get away with a lot of stuff if its politically inconvenient. I mean the HSBC laundered billions for drug cartels. Heckler and Koch breached weapon embargos. Non of that is in any way a grey area but plain and simply criminal conspiracy.

Another common term is old-growth/primary forest

If buzzfeed can win a pulitzer prize, then ieee can get a magazine with buzzfeed headlines. What a time to be alive!

Thats likely with buildings owned by the municipalities? We have something similarly with a few decade old squats in Germany.

Thats as helpful for a general discussion as a communist calling private property theft or a libertarian calling taxes theft.

We currently have rules in quite a few countries that allow nationalisation as well as expropriation under certain conditions. Not using your plot of land could get you expropriated in the Netherlands, just as you can get expropriated if the government wants to build something important enough on your plot of land. You know, like a border wall. You might get some compensation, you might not. Depends on the country and the laws of that region as well as the circumstances.

It wasnt a cost benefit analysis. It was a moral opposition to the idea of squatting after a rise of the far right into parliament and reporting that put squatters in the corner of left wing terrorists.

We can learn that certain people oppose the idea of squatters on a moral level. I dont think thats a surprising new finding.

Not wrong and not 30 years but 9 years out of date.

I still think its noteworthy, that Amsterdam had such a rule for a long time until very recently. It shows that there are precedents for how to deal with empty buildings.

Its "had" isnt it? Squatting was made illegal in 2010 if i recall correctly.