On 2024-10-24 7:31 a.m., bad sector wrote:
> On 10/23/24 17:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:01:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They are
>>> stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the stupid.
>>
>> Have you anti-abortionists figured out yet whether you support IVF or
>> not?
>> Does “life begin at conception” apply in a Petri dish as well, or only in
>> a woman’s body?
>
> Humanitary exception can be made in the case of a married hetero couple
> who cannot procreate otherwise, and what the left calls anti-abortion is
> actually anti-UNCONDITIONAL-abortion i.e. anti
> abortion-as-birth-control. That said, society should require cognitive,
> IQ, and psy. testing for a permit to marry, procreate, vote, drive a car
> or own guns, the last two on a yearly basis. The left is misreading and
> twisting everything ever since it created the twiggy movement (to eat no
> fats) because its barbie-boy neo-males with trimmed little goaties to
> appear more masculine than they actually are needed a skinny less
> intimidating female form promising easier access to underdeveloped
> sexual organs. Unfortunately fats are needed by the brain to function.
> Enter the WOKE generation: mama-molested fuckbrain zombies.

I agree with the entirety of the above paragraph, especially with the
idea that the stupid twist everything. I've too old to stomach it
anymore, so I would rather just filter out the stupid entirely.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-24 7:40 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/10/2024 12:31, bad sector wrote:
>> On 10/23/24 17:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:01:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They are
>>>> stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the stupid.
>>>
>>> Have you anti-abortionists figured out yet whether you support IVF or
>>> not?
>>> Does “life begin at conception” apply in a Petri dish as well, or
>>> only in
>>> a woman’s body?
>>
>> Humanitary exception can be made in the case of a married hetero
>> couple who cannot procreate otherwise, and what the left calls
>> anti-abortion is actually anti-UNCONDITIONAL-abortion i.e. anti
>> abortion-as-birth-control. That said, society should require
>> cognitive, IQ, and psy. testing for a permit to marry, procreate,
>> vote, drive a car or own guns, the last two on a yearly basis. The
>> left is misreading and twisting everything ever since it created the
>> twiggy movement (to eat no fats) because its barbie-boy neo-males with
>> trimmed little goaties to appear more masculine than they actually are
>> needed a skinny less intimidating female form promising easier access
>> to underdeveloped sexual organs. Unfortunately fats are needed by the
>> brain to function. Enter the WOKE generation: mama-molested fuckbrain
>> zombies.
>>
>>
>
> Christ on a bike.

Heresy.

> In the end women wanting to rid themselves of a child always find a way.

So let's not even _try_ to child, right? Only stupid people can be this
pessimistic.

> Half of the argument to legalise it was to get rid of 'back street'
> abortionists feeding poisons to or sticking knitting needles in the mother.
>
> Many of whom died.
>
> Having different laws to a next door country simply encourages abortion
> tourism. Plenty of nice Irish catholic girls took a trip to London...
>
> ..if it was outlawed in Montana, they would doubtless find a short trip
> to California of use...

If the infanticide procedure itself costs them something, they shouldn't
worry about the cost of the trip to a state where such infanticide is
permitted. As long as taxpayers don't have to share the burden, I have
no issue.

> But the whole mess is all part of people taking up *moral* positions.
>
> Buying into to socialists 'fairness' and 'justice' or religious 'right
> to life' and other such hand wavery bollocks.
>
> The fact is that legalisation brought no more abortions, just less
> deaths of mothers.

I apologize for not crying over the mothers who would willingly
sacrifice both child and themselves.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 10/24/24 07:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/10/2024 12:31, bad sector wrote:
>> On 10/23/24 17:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:01:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't even think they deserve to be called leftists anymore. They are
>>>> stupid and should be called such. There is the right and the stupid.
>>>
>>> Have you anti-abortionists figured out yet whether you support IVF or
>>> not?
>>> Does “life begin at conception” apply in a Petri dish as well, or
>>> only in
>>> a woman’s body?
>>
>> Humanitary exception can be made in the case of a married hetero
>> couple who cannot procreate otherwise, and what the left calls anti-
>> abortion is actually anti-UNCONDITIONAL-abortion i.e. anti abortion-
>> as-birth-control. That said, society should require cognitive, IQ, and
>> psy. testing for a permit to marry, procreate, vote, drive a car or
>> own guns, the last two on a yearly basis. The left is misreading and
>> twisting everything ever since it created the twiggy movement (to eat
>> no fats) because its barbie-boy neo-males with trimmed little goaties
>> to appear more masculine than they actually are needed a skinny less
>> intimidating female form promising easier access to underdeveloped
>> sexual organs. Unfortunately fats are needed by the brain to function.
>> Enter the WOKE generation: mama-molested fuckbrain zombies.
>>
>>
>
> Christ on a bike.
>
> In the end women wanting to rid themselves of a child always find a way.
> Half of the argument to legalise it was to get rid of 'back street'
> abortionists feeding poisons to or sticking knitting needles in the mother.
>
> Many of whom died.
>
> Having different laws to a next door country simply encourages abortion
> tourism. Plenty of nice Irish catholic girls took a trip to London...
>
> ..if it was outlawed in Montana, they would doubtless find a short trip
> to California of use...
>
> But the whole mess is all part of people taking up *moral* positions.

A mother's health, not to mention risk to life, are protected *as is*
just about everywhere. Admitted that there ARE a few backwoods
hog-humping states that really belong in the movie Deliverance, which is
why I disagree _somewhat_ with the otherwise very democratic idea of
leaving it to local authorities instead of centralizing. Still, no men
should ever have a say about it, votes on this should be reserved
exclusively to mothers and representatives who are mothers from city
hall to the supreme court.

On 24/10/2024 14:45, bad sector wrote:
> till, no men should ever have a say about it

Wait till some female aborts your child without even a by your leave
--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 2024-10-24 9:58 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/10/2024 14:45, bad sector wrote:
>> till, no men should ever have a say about it
>
> Wait till some female aborts your child without even a by your leave

I have read, heard and watched a number of stories from men who were
tricked into impregnating a woman, in and out of wedlock, and then had
their lives ruined by the woman. The women would lie about being on
birth control, would lie about not wanting the father to be in the life
of the child if ever they weren't, and so on only to turn around and
demand support without even allowing them to see the child they created
or have any say in how it is raised. Even when the man did things right
and married the woman before deciding to start a family, the woman would
use the reality that courts usually side with her in making sure that
the father would not only be forced to give her most of his paycheck,
but be forced to sit back and watch this nutcase raise the child to
become a deviant, often powerless to prevent their kid from turning into
a transsexual science project with Joel Crump's body and Chris
Ahlstrom's brain.

And they wonder why men don't want to get married or even get into
relationships anymore.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On Wed, 10/23/2024 10:06 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:

> This statement demonstrates how much progressives care about the people being enslaved in foreign countries ...

Once you offshore, THERE IS NO TURNING BACK.

Darth Vader said it best:

"You don't know the POWER of the dark side".

Google "Don't be evil"
Google "We have a new plan"

Even if you had a national policy for a certain
thing, businessmen would work to thwart that plan.

Even in wartime, businessmen have done things going
against the country. For their own profit. And in more
than one political system.

Just keep reading your newspaper, OK ? Scumbags are everywhere.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/minister-jeremy-harrison-fired-crown-corp-board-chair-who-blew-the-whistle-on-apparent-conflicts-of-interest-1.7352049

Paul

On 10/24/24 09:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/10/2024 14:45, bad sector wrote:
>> till, no men should ever have a say about it
>
> Wait till some female aborts your child without even a by your leave

By 'say' I meant voting for/against interdicting legislation. Men
haven't got a clue about what it is to have been born a woman (and vice
versa), similarly if laws interdicting prostatectomy had to be written
(as poor an example as that may be) that vote should belong to men only.

On 2024-10-24 11:56 a.m., Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 10/23/2024 10:06 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> This statement demonstrates how much progressives care about the people being enslaved in foreign countries ...
>
> Once you offshore, THERE IS NO TURNING BACK.

Only if you don't care about your people. I am a nationalist so my own
people will always come first.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> The obvious answer is attacks on weak cryptography. RSA-1024 and DH-1024
>> are probably breakable by the biggest SIGINT agencies (and anyone else
>> with comparable compute resources: cloud service providers for example).
>
> Weak cryptography is easy to fix. The hard part to fix is weak random
> numbers.

Other way round. A bad RNG can be swapped out for a better one with
little or no impact on anything else. Cryptographic choices that are
baked into a protocol or API are a lot more challenging to shift.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:07:15 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

>
> Yes, you can go totally overboard on "security",
> and, mostly, it won't do much good. Paranoia can
> push this to extremes where you can barely use
> the system/apps (think Vista) - and I think that's
> what Linus is concerned with.
>

You should read the comments in the Phoronix link.

Several posters indicate that there is a vast difference
between security that is relevant for a public-facing
server and for a desktop workstation. Furthermore, the
posters claim, most GNU/Linux distros are configured
for public-facing servers only.

This is totally ridiculous. As I already stated, there
should be a split between servers and workstations.
But there is not, and unless one "rolls ones own" then
one is stuck with a security-laden and crippled distro.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:57:06 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-10-23 11:25 p.m., Jasen Betts wrote:
>
>> Indeed, it shows that progressives consider policy while conservatives
>> are only interested in rhetoric.
>
> Complete bullshit.

Rhetoric requires some ability to compose coherent sentences. Spouting
expletives does not.

On 10/24/24 13:30, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2024-10-24 11:56 a.m., Paul wrote:
>> On Wed, 10/23/2024 10:06 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> This statement demonstrates how much progressives care about the
>>> people being enslaved in foreign countries ...
>>
>> Once you offshore, THERE IS NO TURNING BACK.
>
> Only if you don't care about your people. I am a nationalist so my own
> people will always come first.

You don't even have to be a nationalist, motherboards and gpu's (some
research, automated printed circuit production and little more) costing
$1000 up are well within domestic margins as it is. It's just a question
of someone taking a swipe at it and THEN (because offshore WILL start
slashing prices if challenged) sticking to a strategic PLAN.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:48:57 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> Weak cryptography is easy to fix. The hard part to fix is weak random
>> numbers.
>
> Other way round. A bad RNG can be swapped out for a better one with
> little or no impact on anything else.

Unfortunately, you can never be sure your RNG is good.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:44:38 -0400, bad sector wrote:

> You don't even have to be a nationalist, motherboards and gpu's (some
> research, automated printed circuit production and little more) costing
> $1000 up are well within domestic margins as it is.

Why is Taiwan the world capital for computer hardware? Because the
Government had the foresight to support private investment in hardware
manufacturing back in the 1980s, which didn’t fully pay off for close to
another decade. But when it did pay off, it effectively killed off most PC
hardware manufacturing in the US and elsewhere.

Who in the US is going to take the risk of such a long-term investment?
They weren’t capable then, they’re even less capable now. You don’t even
believe in the idea that Government can be helpful to businesses, as
opposed to being an obstacle to them.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:40:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> But the whole mess is all part of people taking up *moral* positions.

No, the whole mess is all part of people rationalizing their moral
positions based on religion. Keep your religion out of your morality, and
things become a lot simpler.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:10:34 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> If the infanticide procedure itself costs them something, they shouldn't
> worry about the cost of the trip to a state where such infanticide is
> permitted. As long as taxpayers don't have to share the burden, I have
> no issue.

Do you count IVF as an “infanticide procedure”?

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:05:02 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>This is the truth. "Migrant" is a weasel word created by the left in order
>to slip in the unstated assumption that they somehow have the right to
>stay where ever they choose to settle down. It is incorrect and dishonest.

"Migrant" is simply an inclusive word to cover both immigrants and
emigrants. It refers to people who move from one country to another
regardless of whether they are coming or going, and regardless of
their reason for moving.

Follow-ups set, since not all migrants use Linux.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On 10/24/24 18:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:44:38 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>
>> You don't even have to be a nationalist, motherboards and gpu's (some
>> research, automated printed circuit production and little more) costing
>> $1000 up are well within domestic margins as it is.
>
> Why is Taiwan the world capital for computer hardware? Because the
> Government had the foresight to support private investment in hardware
> manufacturing back in the 1980s, which didn’t fully pay off for close to
> another decade. But when it did pay off, it effectively killed off most PC
> hardware manufacturing in the US and elsewhere.

That money allowed them to cut prices and it was the low prices that
gave them sales. But now the prices are no longer low at all. Maybe it's
up to the buyers to stop dishing out big bucks for $5 boards.

> You don’t even
> believe in the idea that Government can be helpful to businesses, as
> opposed to being an obstacle to them.

I don't recall having said that, but I do advocate that vital
infrastructure should not be trusted to private monopoly enterprise.

On 24/10/2024 23:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>
> Why is Taiwan the world capital for computer hardware? Because the
> Government had the foresight to support private investment in hardware
> manufacturing back in the 1980s, which didn’t fully pay off for close to
> another decade. But when it did pay off, it effectively killed off most PC
> hardware manufacturing in the US and elsewhere.
>
>

If this is true then the the Governments in the west must be very
incompetent to under-estimate the rise of Taiwan, China and India.

Demented Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did absolutely nothing to make
America Great Again or MAGA for short. It is time that you vote for me
to achieve your dreams to be self-reliant in all things "Made in the USA".

Undocumented migrants should be made to work for nothing to make them
realise that coming to the USA is not going to work for them. People
like CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> should also be made to live with them
in the slave tents and made to eat rotten foods thrown by rich Americans.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:05:13 -0400, bad sector wrote:

> On 10/24/24 18:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Why is Taiwan the world capital for computer hardware? Because the
>> Government had the foresight to support private investment in hardware
>> manufacturing back in the 1980s, which didn’t fully pay off for close
>> to another decade. But when it did pay off, it effectively killed off
>> most PC hardware manufacturing in the US and elsewhere.
>
> That money allowed them to cut prices ...

Where did they get the money from?

On 10/23/24 4:01 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> writes:
>> The problem is State-funded actors these days and the MASSIVE
>> computing power they can bring to bear.
>
> Well, it’s _a_ problem, for people and organizations who are realistic
> targets of state actors. But (for example) for most private individuals
> the biggest threat is criminals trying to access their bank account or
> credit card.
>
>> At least SOME of those "theoretical" attack vectors CAN become real
>> attack vectors.
>>
>> But WHICH ???
>
> The obvious answer is attacks on weak cryptography. RSA-1024 and DH-1024
> are probably breakable by the biggest SIGINT agencies (and anyone else
> with comparable compute resources: cloud service providers for example).
>
> https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy.pdf attempted to analyse
> this (among other things) nearly a decade ago, as a concrete example.

Um ... even weak crypto takes a lot of CPU time to
decode.

Direct access to corp computers, where the victim's
system is doing all the work, via fake or compromised
corp users - I think *that* is the "biggest problem"
relative to data theft.

A lot of THAT involves "human engineering" - scams
that most ordinary workers will never detect despite
good 'educational' efforts. Scammers are VERY sneaky.

However poor security/auth measures and un-monitored
external access also plays a role - corp laziness
and/or budget limitations.

It's not just *a* problem - but weakness at a number
of levels.

Vlad's boyz have the time and resources to go after
ALL of them - over and over and over - until chinks
in the armor are found. Victims generally do NOT
have the resources, IQ/$$$, to defend.

Oh, and the golden gate to bank accts and industrial
control systems and such are all the numbers/data Vlad's
boyz steal - the stuff you use to prove you are you.

Oh, today's news - another health-care system finally
admits to being severely compromised ... 100 MILLION
detailed records stolen. Sorry, but everyone needs
all-NEW numbers for everything, like TOMORROW.
Otherwise when They hit the hit will be TOTAL, so
large deep and wide there will be no good fixes.
A nuke attack without a single mushroom cloud.

This is the world we have (mis)-made.

SO - Linus is *partially* correct, but also partially wrong.
It's the "wrong" fraction that's so worrisome.

On Thu, 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:44:38 -0400, bad sector wrote:
>
>> You don't even have to be a nationalist, motherboards and gpu's (some
>> research, automated printed circuit production and little more) costing
>> $1000 up are well within domestic margins as it is.
>
> Why is Taiwan the world capital for computer hardware? Because the
> Government had the foresight to support private investment in hardware
> manufacturing back in the 1980s, which didn’t fully pay off for close to
> another decade. But when it did pay off, it effectively killed off most PC
> hardware manufacturing in the US and elsewhere.
>
> Who in the US is going to take the risk of such a long-term investment?
> They weren’t capable then, they’re even less capable now. You don’t even
> believe in the idea that Government can be helpful to businesses, as
> opposed to being an obstacle to them.
>

Labor cost is an input.

Some of the materials for domestic production, would be turnkey systems.
For example, a solder tunnel is a turnkey system. There can be a lot of
automation on some parts of the process. But test and integration is
an issue. (Asus might have a thousand women sitting at tables, doing test.
we don't have a thousand women sitting at tables doing that in North America.)
And anyone who has been remotely near one of our factories,
knows what a zoo it is inside. Every factory is a zoo. Even the
Asus factory will be a zoo. It's the nature of the beast.
Foxconn has 500,000 employees.

And to give you some idea how the two countries differ, to do a certain
repair procedure here (down the street from us), cost $1000. That operation
is only suited to a prototype PCB (cost is too high for any other purpose).
In Taiwan, the same procedure costs $25. Why ? well one of the reasons,
is the Taiwan dude doing them, is doing one after another, all day. He never stops.
Our local shop, he is paid to sit on his hands all week, and he does about
one a week. This means we could do better, with volume, but ultimately,
the pay rate of the two dudes is different. Not by much, but different.
The pay scale of a skilled tech worker in the foreign countries has risen
since we started offshoring. But it's still profitable to use them.
Not all the workers are skilled. The untrained ones are cheaper.
Some jobs need knowledgeable staff. There are still a lot of
humans that need *constant* supervision (why it is a zoo!).
Everyone has to pull on the oars in the same direction.
Our workers don't always do that.

If you automate everything (like Musk tried to do), the cost is high
for the equipment, and the profit from your little operation, has
to pay off that equipment. The equipment has to be programmed.
The maintenance staff to keep everything running, those are skilled
individuals. And on any given day, there can be a work stoppage
until some code or script is fixed up. In essence, the robots
are just as dumb, as some of the people they replaced. One thing
humans can do, is for trivial issues, they can work around the issue
until the root cause is resolved. Robots won't be doing it that way.
And no, don't say the word AI :-)

*******

What I didn't mention, is we have none of the humans discussed above.
We have no skilled workers. Once their jobs were offshored, they
became Uber drivers and UPS delivery people. They're not coming back.
we don't have enough professors with the right backgrounds, to
teach a new generation of people. There is a long period
of rebuilding the industry.

For example, years ago here, I could stop a guy on the street
and ask him if he could solder, and he probably could.
If I did that today, the teenager watching TikTok vids
on his phone would look up and say "what is solder?".
We're devoid of a certain kind of individual. Only some
places have clusters of tech workers now.

Consider a conversation I had with an HR person once, over a beer.
we were joking about something, and she tells me "when the resumes
come in, if a tech worker has been out of work for a year, I just
throw out their resume". She didn't read the resume, to find out
what skills she is throwing away. That gives you some idea, of the opinion
of HR to the state of the tech workers. Even if there were old farts
sitting around typing posts to USENEt, you would not hire them, because...
their resume was already thrown in the garbage :-) None of you
should be particularly surprised by this. Seeing the barrier yet ?
Seeing how difficult it is to bootstrap anything ? That's why my
estimate is, it would take twenty years effort to even get close
to rebuilding an industry. No business man is that patient. Sorry.

Paul

On 10/23/24 8:36 AM, Phillip Frabott wrote:
> On 10/23/2024 03:07, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 10/21/24 3:07 PM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
>>> Distro maintainers, and their lackey consumers, who bloat their
>>> GNU/Linux
>>> distros with performance degrading security "features" should take note
>>> of the latest exclamations of Linus Torvalds:
>>>
>>> "Honestly, I'm pretty damn fed up with buggy hardware and completely
>>> theoretical
>>> attacks that have never actually shown themselves to be used in
>>> practice."
>>>
>>> https://linux.slashdot.org/story/24/10/21/1533228/linus-torvalds-
>>> growing-frustrated-by-buggy-hardware-theoretical-cpu-attacks
>>>
>>> Tell 'em, Linus!  Those paranoid freaks are ruining desktop computing!
>>
>>    Linus is "kind-of right", but "kind-of not".
>>
>>    The problem is State-funded actors these days
>>    and the MASSIVE computing power they can bring
>>    to bear. At least SOME of those "theoretical"
>>    attack vectors CAN become real attack vectors.
>>
>>    But WHICH ???
>>
>>    Yes, you can go totally overboard on "security",
>>    and, mostly, it won't do much good. Paranoia can
>>    push this to extremes where you can barely use
>>    the system/apps (think Vista) - and I think that's
>>    what Linus is concerned with.
>>
>>    However there ARE 'sensible' security measures
>>    that go beyond mere Linux passwords and a few
>>    port blocks.
>>
>
> I think the point that Linus was making was just that, even if these
> 'theoretical' attack vectors were actual issues, the CPU manufacturer's
> need to be the one patching it with a firmware update.

SOME of it is CPU, SOME is 'system', SOME will be
peripherial chips/drivers.

There's no ONE attack vector. Vlad's boyz have the
resources to put the proverbial battering ram to
every portal.

Oh, and CPU makers will ALWAYS be behind the curve.
This is the ever-repeating paradigm for attacks and
I don't think it can be fixed.

> Hardware related
> attacks need to be fixed by the hardware MFG and Linux should only fix
> software related attack vectors. I think that was the point Linus was
> making here. The kernel should not be the go-to agency for fixing
> hardware-specific security issues, nor should it be the kernel's job
> anyways. It's like, Boeing having a problem with an engine from another
> manufacturer. Who fixes the engine? It should be the engine manufacturer
> not some Boeing software engineer adding something to the throttle
> control system to 'mitigate' the issue.

But again the TIME factor gets involved. No maker
"just knows" all the weaknesses of their chips/system/
apps. Their response is usually REACTIVE - but by then
the damage has been done. This is the Real Life bummer.

> At least that was how I took it. I don't think Linus was trying to
> downplay the security aspect of it. I think it's just, it's not a "Linux
> Problem". Go fix your sh*t Intel/AMD. But that's just my take on the
> article.

Linus is super-smart and practical - no question. But
even he can't guess ALL potential attack vectors, and
they MAY revolve around tiny flaws created a decade,
or decades, ago.

SOME of the ultra-paranoid, oft "committee" derived,
potential security issues ARE gonna be pure BS. The
question is WHICH ? External critics always go hawg
wild to make themselves look good, but they're not
wrong about *everything*.

It's a problem.

Now a SERIOUS problem as the cyber-wars are escalating
very rapidly.

SO ... what the hell do we DO ???

Ah ... C64s with dial-up and System-in-ROM !

Should have kept my C64 ... DO have a VIC-20
stashed somewhere though .... the executors of
my estate are gonna HATE my vast "weird stuff"
inventory, but, hey, I won't care :-)

He who dies with the most toys ...........

Hmm - wonder if my Sanyo mostly-pc-compatible
is worth anything ? Tandy proto-laptop with
actual Bill Gates code in it ? ZX-81 ? 8051
chip inventory ? Apple-II ??? :-)

On 10/24/24 2:53 PM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:07:15 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, you can go totally overboard on "security",
>> and, mostly, it won't do much good. Paranoia can
>> push this to extremes where you can barely use
>> the system/apps (think Vista) - and I think that's
>> what Linus is concerned with.
>>
>
> You should read the comments in the Phoronix link.
>
> Several posters indicate that there is a vast difference
> between security that is relevant for a public-facing
> server and for a desktop workstation. Furthermore, the
> posters claim, most GNU/Linux distros are configured
> for public-facing servers only.

I'd kinda argue that even yer biz desktop PCs are
now "public-facing". There's probably a router
in there somewhere, but the Greater Connectivity
push kinda requires most desktops to be VERY
connected. Most biz do not have the IQ/$$$ to
look at, and mitigate, *everything*. Response
is 99% reactive, not pro-active.

> This is totally ridiculous. As I already stated, there
> should be a split between servers and workstations.
> But there is not, and unless one "rolls ones own" then
> one is stuck with a security-laden and crippled distro.

As said, I think the line between 'servers' and
'workstations' has blurred significantly and will
blur even more. The 'cloud' push puts most of the
data/access out of YOUR hands too. Yea, yea, you
can claim it's not YOUR fault, but .....

And then at least half the probs will be 'human
engineering' related too ... no software fixes.
Go ahead, fire the typical clueless worker, the
damage will already be done and you'll just have
to hire another clueless worker.

bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:

>>> Whoever did whatever in South Africa never did, never will, and
>>> certainly doesn't define what is meant by any term elsewhere and that
>>> includes 'illegal alien'. Illegal = unauthorised, unlawful; alien =
>>> foreign, potentially hostile. Nothing complicated really i.e. a squatter
>>>from elsewhere as would be someone who just waltzes into your
>>> living-room and pitches tent there uninvited.
>>
>> Uh huh. You ever hear of Christopher Columbus?
>
>Sure, far too much even; he was a paper christian if at all whom the
>vatican was about to BBQ so he quickly found himself a sweetheart deal
>with the spanish queen to get the fuck outta Dodge and just in time.
>
>> Was he born in the
>> Americas? Or did he just declare land to be the property of Spain,
>> without any rational basis? What the fuck do you think crackers
>> coming here were, if not "illegal immigrants"?
>
>What DECIDED whom the land belonged to was the size of the Spanish navy,
>also the British, the French, and the German to name the top guns. When
>did you get off the boat?
>
>> Just because the
>> indigenous people hadn't created a system of government to make a law,
>> against their arrival? Despite the fact whities massacred indigenous
>> people, to gain territory here?
>
>Laws without power mean didley shit, but who was talking about the USA?
>What is it with Americans that unless someone specifically says 'this is
>not about the USA' they always think that everyone on usenet is by
>default thinking and talking about them? The illegal migrant problem is
>at crisis levels in Europe for example, far worse than stateside.
>
>> Wake the fuck up.
>
>Land is like a woman, belongs to the last man standing subject only to
>her wanting any of him regardless. There is no ancestral 'right' that I
>know of or would accept.

You're a fucking pig.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.