every humble bundle game has both been available on steam, and linux.
775 karma · joined October 13, 2011
the attack was a hypervisor intrusion, linode's VM setup was hacked, none of these recommendations would have helped at all in this case.
If you look for an issue, you will surely find one.
Just because nobody said anything, doesn't mean that nobody knew.
Why would they give a flying fuck what you would "love them to be" if you still shovel fistfulls of money at them?
and this is reasonable?
Hate the game, not the player, right?
That is completely absurd, sorry.
2) there is zero reassurance, there is also zero reassurance gmail isnt sending all your mail to the NSA, etc. TOR helps you ensure you can keep you tormail and your clearnet identities as separate as possible, alternatively, run your own service.
>If I spend $1 million to develop something innovative and the guy next to me stole that innovation; he effectively stole $1 million from me. That's a huge disincentive to spending another million to innovate.
The two are not (directly) related to each other, if you make a profit on the 1 million dollar investment, it doesn't matter how many people "steal it" (bullshit rhetorical term), you WILL invest the next one million dollars. You are totally discounting incentives such as first to market.
>For those that disagree, I challenge you to open source all of the code you're working on for your companies. Then, I'll set up an exact clone of your application (including using your logo) and start making money from your work. That would encourage you to innovate right? Cool, innovate, then I'll use the new code you made, along with the new logo and continue making money from your work.
This is a ridiculous straw man, nobody here is talking about abolishing all aspects of intellectual property law including trademarks.
> Intellectual property is a critical piece of developing a competitive advantage. Take away that competitive advantage and we might as well be the Soviet Union.
It can just as easily be said that intellectual property is a critical piece of tactics to stifle competition, take that away and we have a freer market.
>If you create something, you should have the right to profit from it.
You have no right to profit from anything, the market decides these things (when free of government distortion). I want to profit from posting on HN all day, but that's just not in the cards.
>If you look at the innovation in China, especially in software, it's very flat because the protections there are almost non-existent.
another completely unproven assertion, their are numerous indications that the lack of protections is exactly what is powering Chinese economic growth[1], and powered American industrial growth pre 1900s[2], and powered German chemistry and pharmaceutical industries in the early 1900s[3].
Look, i'm not saying abolish all forms of "intellectual property". Simply that you should not start from the A Priori position that intellectual property is always beneficial.
[1] http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/39400
[2] http://www.cipr.org.uk/papers/pdfs/study_papers/sp1a_khan_st...
[3] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020454240457715...
The Microsoft requirements are very vague on this point, if early hardware is indication, disabling it could be quite complicated and error prone, IE having to re flash the firmware.
The biggest problem IMO is Microsoft is completely free to change this requirement at any time, and with stuff like ARM already being mandated as having no way to disable secure boot, or load keys, I don't think this is particularly far fetched.
Also consider the fact they never mandated having a way to disable it previously, until there was a massive outcry.
My point being, I doubt that this was your first encounter with programming a computer, and even if it was, you are in the extreme minority, even on HN.
>You also toss out with the bathwater virtual machines. You can boot a virtual machine where the hypervisor is 'signed' on a machine which gives you 100% access to your virtual machine that can do most anything you might want, from talking to the network, to displaying graphics, to running the latest fizzbuzz contender.
Ah, where is this VM i can run on an unrooted ipad?
Another problem is early indications are that disabling secure boot on many of these machines involves re-flashing the firmware entirely, with a ton of steps, and a lot of room for "buggy" behaviour
Compare something like CableCard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD, where before the FCC mandated that all receivers must use it, people with HD TIVOs would regularly go through dozens of cards because they stopped working randomly, a complete coincidence of course...
I think its atrocious that Microsoft has turned a supposedly open standard (UEFI) into a standard that gives them complete control of modern PCs.
Its easy to obscure the real issue with discussions about rootkits and security, but these infact have nothing to do with how the exact specifics of this particular technology are implemented, and the problems that result.
This a classic example of the syllogistic fallacy (we must do something -> this is something -> we must do this). These issues need to be separated.
The real question is, why should this obvious conflict of interest even be allowed to exist.
It seems the best course of action would be to trust only an individual cert, and check for revocation.
Also OCSP is basicly a joke, it works every single time, except when it matters (an attacker controlling your view of the world)
Some of that will be eaten up by fixed costs of providing the service (for stuff like bandwidth, Google can probably get better prices than almost anyone else in the world, due to extensive peering), and for the provided electronics (which Google can order in huge quantities and pay comparatively little for, or even build themselves, like they do with their own internal servers and networking equipment). Whats left over is still a very large chunk of change, especially when you consider the fact that Google wont roll out fiber till a decent percentage of a neighborhood is willing to sign on (their calculated numbers are almost certainly designed to cover roll out costs)
I think this will easily pay for their roll out costs. Remember, they don't need to build out a national network to serve tons of places, they already have one. YouTube itself already uses something like 40% of the internet traffic to residential connections.
The important thing to consider here, is as far as Google is concerned, they only need to break even, they arn't in the same game the other ISPs are where it is their only profit center.
There is a large upfront free that customers have to pay for the installation. If the economics have been worked out correctly by Google, the customers themselves will pay almost all of the roll out costs.
Edit: I should clarify, a large upfront fee, or a reasonably large monthly fee.
As for electricity, the cost of packaging up and sending drive units to the customer + upkeep would dwarf the costs of electricity for the total lifetime of the drives.
I don't think this really makes sense.