Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


evildictaitor evildictait​or Devil's advocate
  • Lenovo and Crapware (or worse)

    , Bass wrote


    Seems like a lot of effort. I don't actually care all that much:

    Source: XKCD

    Cool. So long as your Linux machine doesn't run Android, PHP or have any users it'll probably be just fine.

  • Lenovo and Crapware (or worse)

    , Bass wrote

    Microsoft added a malware signature for this in Windows Defender. Hey just because a legit company put it into the computers doesn't somehow not make it malware.

    Technically Windows Defender is detecting and removing the "compromised root certificate" part of Superfish. That's not quite the same as stating that Superfish is malware.

    Unfortunately, although adware is pretty indistinguishable from malware for most purposes, there's a legal distinction: adware comes with a EULA that users click through, and consequently Microsoft can't overrule the user's "choice" without getting into antitrust problems.

    If you don't like it, feel free to write a letter to the Department of Justice to complain.

  • Lenovo and Crapware (or worse)

    , GreyLensman wrote

    As to Lenovo PC's being pre-infected?  Yes, it was very stupid of them to use a easily crackable password.  My understanding of the underlying software however points to a  remote support app gone crazy.  Due to the weak password a remote hacker can login remotely and have at your PC.  You all assume this is "new".  I see it as more of the same.  The passwords have simply been a bit more secure in the past.  I say "flog" them however I see nothing not seen elsewhere 

    The security problem isn't the weak password. It's the fact they install an intercepting SSL key into your computers root of trust (so they can decrypt your SSL and inject adverts into HTTPS pages).

    Unfortunately, the key isn't different per machine, it's the same on all machines. So a hacker can use the private key from his machine (which he will always be able to get, because the intercepting proxy needs it to work), and use that private key to attack other Lenovo machines.

    Tl;dr: it's not because of a weak password. It's because they installed a poorly secured trusted root.into your machines global CA store.

  • Lenovo and Crapware (or worse)

    Does anyone here actually have one of these machines?

    If so, can you see if the adware or root cert persists past a system refresh? If so, that's a major problem that Microsoft needs to sort out.

    Otherwise, that is at least the "reset to Signature edition" button you were looking for; at least on Win8+.

  • Is privacy possible anymore?

    , spivonious wrote

    I expect that the voice data received by this third party is immediately discarded if it doesn't contain any valid voice commands, and that no human will ever listen to the recordings. Anything else would be a privacy violation, and warrant much more than the disclaimer Samsung provides.

    Unless Samsung ever gets hacked, or is compelled by warrant or subpoena to record your audio and pass it to (not necessarily your own country's) law-enforcement.

  • Is privacy possible anymore?

    Privacy is important - and as you've just noticed yourself, people feel uncomfortable when they discover that other entities have been watching them without their permission, even if that other party isn't actively malicious.

    The problem is that privacy is the enemy of convenience, and we live in a society which greatly favors convenience over privacy.

    Scanning all of your conversations - both textual via email and vocal via your TV "in the cloud" for keywords is ridiculously Orwellian, and depressingly easy to avoid: simply processing the voice or scanning text locally would offset most of the potential for abuse.

    I do find it tragic that nobody seems to care about companies annexing our freedoms. It is a consequence of the Tech Sector giants being too big; government being too unwilling to rein them in; and citizens too eager to sell their hard won freedoms for a shiny gadget to show off to their friends.



  • crazy anti-cop culture.

    , cbae wrote

    From the article that I linked:

    We're essentially giving law enforcement the power to abuse us because of our obsession with fighting this war on drugs.

    Sound familiar? *cough* *Patriot Act* *cough*

    Did you vote for a Congressman candidate that was standing on abandoning the war on drugs?

    It's popular to hate on the WoD for being stupid, but there's a reason politicians haven't abandoned it. It's still popular, and in a democracy, popular wins the day against sensible.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Do you have a source to cite? I'm wanting to know more, find proof, before I give up my idea. I don't think you do, because I don't think there is proof.

    From here:

    1. Double-Slit Diffraction


    Light passes through double slits and onto a screen resulting in a diffraction pattern. Is light a particle or a wave?

    The Copenhagen Interpretation: Light is neither. A particular experiment can demonstrate particle (photon) or wave properties, but not both at the same time (Bohr's Complementarity Principle).

    The same experiment can in theory be performed with any physical system: electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, viruses, bacteria, cats, humans, elephants, planets, etc. In practice it has been performed for light, electrons, buckminsterfullerene,[40][41] and some atoms. Due to the smallness of Planck's constant it is practically impossible to realize experiments that directly reveal the wave nature of any system bigger than a few atoms but, in general, quantum mechanics considers all matter as possessing both particle and wave behaviors. The greater systems (like viruses, bacteria, cats, etc.) are considered as "classical" ones but only as an approximation, not exact

    Or tl;dr: in the orthodox view of quantum mechanics, wave-functions collapse into particle systems upon observation by "any physical system [including] electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, viruses, bacteria, cats, humans, elephants, planets etc".

    It has also been experimentally verified that light (photons), electrons and buckminsterfulerene molecules are all sufficient to be an "observer" within the meaning of quantum mechanics.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , Richard.Hein wrote

    Is that a fact? 

    Categorically so. Humans exist at a scale so vastly larger than the quantum scale (at sizes around a Planck length, or 1.6x10^35 meters) that all of the quantum effects quickly wash out. Humans do not experience Heisenberg uncertainty and do not collapse into wave-functions when light is shone on them. Even if individual quarks within the structure of your body will, you at the macro scale will never experience quantum effects.

    But don't take my word for it. Here's a conversation between a student in Israel and Professor of physics Prof. Ken Mellendorf of Illinois Central College: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05758.htm


    Consider the size of Planck's constant: 6.63x10^-34 m.kg.m/s. When you measure your position, you measure the average position of all parts of your body. It is extremely difficult to measure the position of your body to a precision of less than a millimeter. On a macroscopic scale, "the width of a hair" is extremely small. I have never actually measured it, but I expect this to be near 0.01mm, or 10^-5 meters. This then allows momentum to have a precision better than 10^-28 kg.m/s. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is of such small proportion that its existence is not noticed at the scale of the macroscopic world.

    Dr. Ken Mellendorf Illinois Central College Physics Professor


  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , Sven Groot wrote


    Just because they use the word "observation" to describe this doesn't mean someone actually needs to be present to see it.


    When quantum mechanics talks about "observers", it means photon collisions, not animals or people with eyes looking at it.

    It is fine to suggest that without human observation things are not real. But that's a philosophical question ("If I cannot see it, does it happen?"), not a quantum-mechanical one.

    Quantum mechanics is not about human observation for the fairly simple reason that humans are not quantum particles.