Sure, we can do that, but keep in mind that unilateral individual actions will not make the difference, all you can do is trying to create more broad awareness, form coalition and support for tighter laws and regulation, in order to have meaningful effect.
Also avoid blaming or moralizing individuals for their own choices, this will cause fatigue and infighting, which will distract from focus on policy change.
You are not giving a reason for your statement. The owner is the one that bought a device. The sole arbiter about what a device should do or shouldn't do. The person responsible of the device. The owner must trust their device in order for the device to be trusted. It doesn't matter what if other people do or do not trust that device, they are not the owners. They should take care to protect their own data on their own devices.
I disagree. For any actual security, the owner of the secrets is the only one that can be trusted. It is their secrets. Their own interest to keep them save.
Any company or government is a shifting entity, maybe now they are trustworthy, but maybe in some years they aren't.
Owners are the only stabile point, because it is their data. They should be able to transfer the trust to a company or government to handle security, but they also need to be able to take away that trust and access, and either handle it themselves or transfer that trust to some other entity.
It is not okay for companies or government to hold the data of individuals hostage... That is not security, that is a business strategy.
Also software... I would love to have regulations that make it clear that the root of trust on all devices need to start by the owner of the device, not by the vendor... That would allow the end users to repair the software on their devices... Replacing it with whatever else they want. Next would be to provide hardware documentation to the owners to program their own devices... I don't expect that to happen, but I can dream.
An old professor of mine made the half-joke that anything with 'science' in its name isn't really science. He was a computer science professor.
I suppose he meant that computer science is closer to applied science aka. engineering than 'real' science like maths and physics, and all their subcategories.
Anyway... In the end everyone that graduated studying computer science got a Bachelor/Masters degree of science, not engineering... And it doesn't matter anyway...
Maybe because I'm not a native english speaker, but to me 'digitising' means converting an analog medium to a digital one. Like with vinyl, VHS, etc. And 'ripping' is about an extraction process. Like overcoming a protection or more difficult to access mediums like Audio CDs, which don't have a real filesystem, and into a easily accessible single file on a harddrive.
DVDs are already digital, and if they don't have a copy protection, which you have to rip through, you can just copy the files to a hardrive and then, if you want reencode them into one more portable file...
Nitpick: Why would anyone do that, DVDs are already digital mediums with a filesystem. So they first have to convert to analog media first... And that introduces losses...
You just put a DVD in your drive and now you can copy files from it to you HD... If copying files is now called 'digitizing' we live in a strange world...
On some systems you can clear all secure boot keys, including Microsoft's, then provision your own and sign your bootloader or kernel with it. Windows cannot boot from such systems.
This is the MOK (Machine Owner Key), which is part of the shim bootloader, not UEFI secure boot.
The shim bootloader is signed by Microsoft UEFI secure boot keys, so Microsoft is the root of trust there.
On some systems you can delete all Secure Boot keys, and provision your own, then you don't need the shim bootloader and can sign your own bootloader or Linux kernel directly. Windows would not be able to boot on those systems.
Sure, my argument is that not the modality of the sense matters, but the circumstances of that power. The resolution, the filtering and the agency someone has over that experience.
Smell compared to sight would also cause generally less of a brain overload, since smell is low bandwidth compared to sight. So if future sight as a curse might be worse than future smelling.
Doubling the amount of information you sense just in two moments, now and the most likely future in 3 minutes, might be more bearable with smell.
All the same situation would happen with future sight. My point is just that if you assume that future sight has resolved those questions, situation and paradoxes in a beneficial way, because it is a super power, the future smell would be a super power as well, and not a curse...
If future sight has resolved them is a bad way, then it would be a curse, just as any other future sense.
Just imagine always having to see all possible sights three minutes into the future at the same time. There always is a miniscule chance of all air molecules bunching up in the corner of your room or you falling through the floor...
How is smelling smells three minutes into the future a curse?
I mean if it works similar to other time powers like seeing into the future, that future would be preventable.
Smelling the future and acting to it seems like pretty awesome, and three minutes is pretty long... You have enough time to act and escape you death maybe, if you suddenly don't smell anything anymore... Or you can make sure that you only eat the best food available... Since tasting food is mostly about smells... You could become an awesome cook... you just have to deal with the five tongue senses...
Sure, we can do that, but keep in mind that unilateral individual actions will not make the difference, all you can do is trying to create more broad awareness, form coalition and support for tighter laws and regulation, in order to have meaningful effect.
Also avoid blaming or moralizing individuals for their own choices, this will cause fatigue and infighting, which will distract from focus on policy change.
You are not giving a reason for your statement. The owner is the one that bought a device. The sole arbiter about what a device should do or shouldn't do. The person responsible of the device. The owner must trust their device in order for the device to be trusted. It doesn't matter what if other people do or do not trust that device, they are not the owners. They should take care to protect their own data on their own devices.
Pipelining? Rabbit-holing? Trojan horsing?
I disagree. For any actual security, the owner of the secrets is the only one that can be trusted. It is their secrets. Their own interest to keep them save.
Any company or government is a shifting entity, maybe now they are trustworthy, but maybe in some years they aren't.
Owners are the only stabile point, because it is their data. They should be able to transfer the trust to a company or government to handle security, but they also need to be able to take away that trust and access, and either handle it themselves or transfer that trust to some other entity.
It is not okay for companies or government to hold the data of individuals hostage... That is not security, that is a business strategy.
Also software... I would love to have regulations that make it clear that the root of trust on all devices need to start by the owner of the device, not by the vendor... That would allow the end users to repair the software on their devices... Replacing it with whatever else they want. Next would be to provide hardware documentation to the owners to program their own devices... I don't expect that to happen, but I can dream.
An old professor of mine made the half-joke that anything with 'science' in its name isn't really science. He was a computer science professor.
I suppose he meant that computer science is closer to applied science aka. engineering than 'real' science like maths and physics, and all their subcategories.
Anyway... In the end everyone that graduated studying computer science got a Bachelor/Masters degree of science, not engineering... And it doesn't matter anyway...
Right, that's it. Though... you probably shouldn't assume someones gender ;)
Maybe because I'm not a native english speaker, but to me 'digitising' means converting an analog medium to a digital one. Like with vinyl, VHS, etc. And 'ripping' is about an extraction process. Like overcoming a protection or more difficult to access mediums like Audio CDs, which don't have a real filesystem, and into a easily accessible single file on a harddrive.
DVDs are already digital, and if they don't have a copy protection, which you have to rip through, you can just copy the files to a hardrive and then, if you want reencode them into one more portable file...
Nitpick: Why would anyone do that, DVDs are already digital mediums with a filesystem. So they first have to convert to analog media first... And that introduces losses...
You just put a DVD in your drive and now you can copy files from it to you HD... If copying files is now called 'digitizing' we live in a strange world...
Oh, just wait when all these AI companies ask for a government bailout... Free market in action...
On some systems you can clear all secure boot keys, including Microsoft's, then provision your own and sign your bootloader or kernel with it. Windows cannot boot from such systems.
This is the MOK (Machine Owner Key), which is part of the shim bootloader, not UEFI secure boot.
The shim bootloader is signed by Microsoft UEFI secure boot keys, so Microsoft is the root of trust there.
On some systems you can delete all Secure Boot keys, and provision your own, then you don't need the shim bootloader and can sign your own bootloader or Linux kernel directly. Windows would not be able to boot on those systems.
You lost sympathy for the people of Ukraine, because their leader does the same as most leaders of other western countries?
Sure, my argument is that not the modality of the sense matters, but the circumstances of that power. The resolution, the filtering and the agency someone has over that experience.
Smell compared to sight would also cause generally less of a brain overload, since smell is low bandwidth compared to sight. So if future sight as a curse might be worse than future smelling.
Doubling the amount of information you sense just in two moments, now and the most likely future in 3 minutes, might be more bearable with smell.
All the same situation would happen with future sight. My point is just that if you assume that future sight has resolved those questions, situation and paradoxes in a beneficial way, because it is a super power, the future smell would be a super power as well, and not a curse...
If future sight has resolved them is a bad way, then it would be a curse, just as any other future sense.
Just imagine always having to see all possible sights three minutes into the future at the same time. There always is a miniscule chance of all air molecules bunching up in the corner of your room or you falling through the floor...
Are you well? Maybe you should sit down, get out of the sun and possible call your local medical emergency number.
That would be the same with future sight... Which people would argue is a super power...
How is smelling smells three minutes into the future a curse?
I mean if it works similar to other time powers like seeing into the future, that future would be preventable.
Smelling the future and acting to it seems like pretty awesome, and three minutes is pretty long... You have enough time to act and escape you death maybe, if you suddenly don't smell anything anymore... Or you can make sure that you only eat the best food available... Since tasting food is mostly about smells... You could become an awesome cook... you just have to deal with the five tongue senses...
No. But there are code smells, that might reveal it.
It is the same with any kind of output generative deep learning models produce.