tritium

Meh, if Mark Zuckerberg has only that one, same, tired sideways quote dragged out and tossed around every time criticism is leveled against him, then Christ almighty if he isn't squeaky clean. A little too clean, if you really wanted my opinion.

His attitude and all-around conduct is pretty much that of a boy scout, and to be honest, I find it boring. Linus Torvalds curses like a sailor, and he doesn't spare anyone's feelings with his criticism, whether it's an individual or a broad generalization. Would you mistrust Linux based on the principal developer's language, or is it more about the project's overall opacity?

Mark Zuckerberg's general demeanor can be read from many obvious tells across all the things he touches. He's not dating super models, he's not buying people Audis, his flagship website has one theme for everyone, two colors (blue & white), five uninteresting emojis, and all the personality of AOL and Yahoo! combined. Yet this reveals nothing about what goes on across Facebook's backplane.

If you're going to criticize his character, you have to criticize the depth and breadth of whatever the faustian bargain is, according to the Snowden leaks. You can compare Zuckerberg to Snowden in terms of choices made, but you really can't fault Zuckerberg for using harsh language in casual conversation. It comes across as whiny and pathetic, like some petulant child. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.

This makes me want less software control in my vehicle. Ideally none.

Yes, that's the idea. Force specialization in the attack sphere, reduce the attacker population with prerequisite knowledge as an entry barrier, simultaneously shrinking the targetable hosts.

Yes, I get that electronic signaling is electronic signaling, and none of it is actually different, at the transmission layer. It's just more DSP and more fast fourier transforms under the hood.

Yes, technical barriers can be eroded with adapters and facades, but it's an added cost to attack, and reduces detective work in that you have to know someone to jump the learning curve and enter the attack envelope. That means detective work can happen within a smaller social graph, and that alone becomes a deterent from sharing information, because everything becomes need-to-know, and insider awareness is a give away for inside jobs.

It's also easier to stamp out, and ostracize insiders, if they have loose lips or have a tendency to lend and give away the car keys.

Not everything needs to be as cheesy as Encryption DRM for optical movie disks and video games. For critical infrastructure safety is important enough to warrant independent military-grade safe guards.

Do military protocols fail? Yes, we have the enigma machines sitting in enough museums to prove it.

This in not an XKCD "too many standards can be solved with one more standard" concept. Isolation and specialization can be effective defense concepts.

The only way true isolation will emerge, is by regulatory mandate of a purpose defined hardware implementation, with a separate protocol, different datagrams (instead of TCP/IP/UDP packets) and independent land line plants, undersea cables, satellites and more.

Otherwise, you'll always have some goon plugging in a wi-fi router, rigging it to a sat phone with a modem, all just to play quake with their friends, while they idle on some crane barge, or wherever their stuck, bored on some hurry-up-and-wait project plan.

Even then, you'll still have wonder about silicon bugs, or tempest and row-hammer style attacks, for anything software ever touches, when a given industry fails to identify such threats themselves.

Put another way, there doesn’t seem to be any apparent correlation between effort and success.

Much ado about nothing. You could say a waste of time is worth a waste of time.

I don’t think there’s anything to fix here, when the real problem is adults with the power to vote, can have their votes swayed by Saturday morning cartoons, because all they ever look at are Saturday morning cartoons.

Yeah, one terabyte is simply an absolutely gigantic octal value, with a trillion place settings.

Perfect for storing a quantity of high resolution “unique numbers” which you might need to recall at some point, when you want to match them up with other oddly similar (but not precisely equal) high resolution unique numbers.

I hear that you can convert images to “unique numbers” using a technique known as “lossless compression” but that stuff’s all way above my pay grade.

Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality have some really limited applications. There are maybe 5 or 6 silver bullet consumer ideas I can think of, but they’re such prohibitively expensive concepts that I can’t think of a way to bring these ideas to a wide audience to distribute costs, such that mass appeal gains realistic traction toward high adoption and growth potential.

In fact, these ideas might only make sense under circumstances where there is literally nothing to do for really, really long periods of time, waiting around in tight quarters until you’re able to unbuckle and move freely. In other words during space travel.

I hope that’s where this is going. Any other setting or context for application of such technologies doesn’t make any normal amount of sense. And this fits, since space travel isn’t exactly normal yet.

My intuition tells me Carmack and Zuckerburg have discussed this WRT rocket ships and outer space. And that combination of subject matter, legitimate credibility, intellect and wealth is the only thing that makes sense, to justify such a bet.

I don’t think you should feel bad about it. The New York Times should be held to a high standard.

Feature phones that run android will lack an accelerometer, might lack a camera, but any phone without a microphone would certainly be strange.

Nonetheless, there's nothing preventing a system bus from reporting that a virtual device exists, even if there's no physical hardware to match. Besides, as soon as you plug a headset into the audio jack, the microphone becomes available.

The problem with this type of system is that the primary benefit is outnumbered by at least two unwanted detriments.

The primary benefit is that remote control can be effective from around the world and outer space.

This is countered by the reality that your command might get bounced off a satellite, even if you’re across the room from the device you’re controlling remotely.

The converse additional problem is that you could be standing next to a device on the north pole, and someone from antarctica could override you.

We haven’t become sophisticated enough about this level of remote control yet, to mitigate these undesirable side effects of extended range remoting via internet tunnels.

So, the guy “Travis Bickled” you?