Anyone else thinking that this is a really bad idea?
-
Intel's Sandy Bridge processors have a remote kill switch See here: http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html[^]
Go and never darken my towels again - Groucho Marx
-
Intel's Sandy Bridge processors have a remote kill switch See here: http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html[^]
Go and never darken my towels again - Groucho Marx
Not if I'm put in charge of the button. Otherwise, yes.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Intel's Sandy Bridge processors have a remote kill switch See here: http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html[^]
Go and never darken my towels again - Groucho Marx
-
Intel's Sandy Bridge processors have a remote kill switch See here: http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html[^]
Go and never darken my towels again - Groucho Marx
What can receive a signal can transmit a signal. Every computer with this chip installed can be tracked. The commands executed by the chip can be tracked, meaning that whoever is at the other end of the 4G connection will know exactly what you are doing: what applications you run, the data you process, the websites you visit, the movies you watch. Bad idea? Hell yes. With the US government becoming more paranoid and more intrusive every month, I would never, EVER get a computer whose process has that kind of stuff built in.
-
Intel's Sandy Bridge processors have a remote kill switch See here: http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html[^]
Go and never darken my towels again - Groucho Marx
-
What can receive a signal can transmit a signal. Every computer with this chip installed can be tracked. The commands executed by the chip can be tracked, meaning that whoever is at the other end of the 4G connection will know exactly what you are doing: what applications you run, the data you process, the websites you visit, the movies you watch. Bad idea? Hell yes. With the US government becoming more paranoid and more intrusive every month, I would never, EVER get a computer whose process has that kind of stuff built in.
I'm not sure what will be possible (if the whole thing doesn't turn out to be a hoax) but it sure creeps me out.
Go and never darken my towels again - Groucho Marx
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It's both useless and dangerous.
It's impossible for something to be both.
-
Not if I'm put in charge of the button. Otherwise, yes.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Intel's Sandy Bridge processors have a remote kill switch See here: http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html[^]
Go and never darken my towels again - Groucho Marx
Will Intel never learn... this is starting to sound just like the processor ID numbers that caused everyone to scream... NO ONE wants anyone but themselves to have control or access (or anything) of thier hardware at that low level. Heck, I am not a paranoid idiot and I don't even like the sound of this one... I can just see it now. Someone gets hold of that code and all of a sudden your entire company is held for ransom. Even if they DON'T have the code how could you be sure?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It's both useless and dangerous.
It's impossible for something to be both.
-
No, useless if it can be bypassed and dangerous if someone else can launch a new type DDoS attack.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Nothing dangerous is ever useless :-)
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It's both useless and dangerous.
It's impossible for something to be both.
-
Well first, if you used the word useful, then it must be useful :-) Second, the enemy is simply "the other guy", but to the other guy you are the other guy. And finally, a little danger is useful even to the best of us when the time is right. I can't think of a single dangerous thing that hasn't had a good use, can you?
-
Well first, if you used the word useful, then it must be useful :-) Second, the enemy is simply "the other guy", but to the other guy you are the other guy. And finally, a little danger is useful even to the best of us when the time is right. I can't think of a single dangerous thing that hasn't had a good use, can you?
Ok, imagine this: Person1 - hey let's equip all out soldiers with a remote-controlled killswitches! Person2 - yea that'll definitely be useful! No. Useful: serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect Except for "serving some purpose" they are all relative to .. who actually? You have to pick Someone, otherwise you could both argue that nothing has a good effect and that everything has a good effect at the same time, just by playing games with who you use a reference point. The standard reference point for a thing is either yourself or its (potential) owner. If you're talking about anyone else you use a "to" modifier like this: "it is useful to someone else" Duh! Why did this bullshit even come up? It's more of a backroom thing.
-
Ok, imagine this: Person1 - hey let's equip all out soldiers with a remote-controlled killswitches! Person2 - yea that'll definitely be useful! No. Useful: serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect Except for "serving some purpose" they are all relative to .. who actually? You have to pick Someone, otherwise you could both argue that nothing has a good effect and that everything has a good effect at the same time, just by playing games with who you use a reference point. The standard reference point for a thing is either yourself or its (potential) owner. If you're talking about anyone else you use a "to" modifier like this: "it is useful to someone else" Duh! Why did this bullshit even come up? It's more of a backroom thing.
harold aptroot wrote:
Ok, imagine this: Person1 - hey let's equip all out soldiers with a remote-controlled killswitches! Person2 - yea that'll definitely be useful! No.
Many times in history this has happened, for example when spies or soldiers are captured and... "interrogated" before being executed. Cyanide capsules hidden in the mouth was one way. Suicide bombers also find this sort of thing very useful. And then, of course, it would be handy if we could use killswitches on enemy soldiers.
harold aptroot wrote:
Why did this bullsh*t even come up?
I don't know, but it seems very important to you. :-)
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Ok, imagine this: Person1 - hey let's equip all out soldiers with a remote-controlled killswitches! Person2 - yea that'll definitely be useful! No.
Many times in history this has happened, for example when spies or soldiers are captured and... "interrogated" before being executed. Cyanide capsules hidden in the mouth was one way. Suicide bombers also find this sort of thing very useful. And then, of course, it would be handy if we could use killswitches on enemy soldiers.
harold aptroot wrote:
Why did this bullsh*t even come up?
I don't know, but it seems very important to you. :-)
-
Ok, imagine this: Person1 - hey let's equip all out soldiers with a remote-controlled killswitches! Person2 - yea that'll definitely be useful! No. Useful: serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect Except for "serving some purpose" they are all relative to .. who actually? You have to pick Someone, otherwise you could both argue that nothing has a good effect and that everything has a good effect at the same time, just by playing games with who you use a reference point. The standard reference point for a thing is either yourself or its (potential) owner. If you're talking about anyone else you use a "to" modifier like this: "it is useful to someone else" Duh! Why did this bullshit even come up? It's more of a backroom thing.
harold aptroot wrote:
Ok, imagine this: Person1 - hey let's equip all out soldiers with a remote-controlled killswitches! Person2 - yea that'll definitely be useful! No. Useful: serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect
Suppose they decide to organise a coup d'état?
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It's both useless and dangerous.
It's impossible for something to be both.
A useless Fire Alarm is dangerous. When there is a fire, that is. The rest of the time its ............ errrr useless.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Ok, imagine this: Person1 - hey let's equip all out soldiers with a remote-controlled killswitches! Person2 - yea that'll definitely be useful! No. Useful: serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect
Suppose they decide to organise a coup d'état?
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
-
How would I know? Do I look like a subversive anti-government traitor? Who are you, the secret police? :laugh:
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
