NVIDIA Releases new driver, brings hotfixes, WDDM 2.0, and yes, finally oCL1.2

[Misanthrope]

Yeah, that's a terrible response. "Don't do anything you're not supposed to be doing!" is not an argument against having proper security measures. It's about a nation being Sovereign and potentially have different ideas that contradict the ones coming from the west and such.

[cesrai]

@patrickjp93 

 

So you feel okay with people coming into your house and started snooping around without you knowing ? I mean you have nothing to hide so it should be okay.

 

I recommend this video:

---

Great news post LukaP. Thank you for not simply doing a complete copy & paste job, that's always appreciated.

What is this ?? being nice to him ?? are you sick or something ?

[patrickjp93]

@patrickjp93 

 

So you feel okay with people coming into your house and started snooping around without you knowing ? I mean you have nothing to hide so it should be okay.

 

I recommend this video:

---

What is this ?? being nice to him ?? are you sick or something ?

As long as nothing is stolen, damaged, etc. pretty much. If you put information on a global system where anyone can, with enough effort, find it, you've given up your sovereignty. Privacy is not an enforceable right on the internet and it shouldn't be thought of as one. It's wholly unrealistic. Everyone from Google and Amazon down to Linus Torvalds has said this.

[patrickjp93]

Yeah, that's a terrible response. "Don't do anything you're not supposed to be doing!" is not an argument against having proper security measures. It's about a nation being Sovereign and potentially have different ideas that contradict the ones coming from the west and such.

You're free to have different ideas. We all change our behaviors in relation to one another based on our various agreements/disagreements. Again, if you put your information on a globally-accessible system, there is no way to enforce the privacy of that data. Finite systems are finite. There is always a security hole, and it's not secure and thus pointless to think of as private. How many times do the best engineers in the industry have to tell you this before you listen?

[Misanthrope]

You're free to have different ideas. We all change our behaviors in relation to one another based on our various agreements/disagreements. Again, if you put your information on a globally-accessible system, there is no way to enforce the privacy of that data. Finite systems are finite. There is always a security hole, and it's not secure and thus pointless to think of as private. How many times do the best engineers in the industry have to tell you this before you listen?

 

To bring my usual quote: "There is no 100% secure lock for a door, so I am leaving my house wide open"

[cesrai]

 

As long as nothing is stolen, damaged, etc. pretty much. If you put information on a global system where anyone can, with enough effort, find it, you've given up your sovereignty. Privacy is not an enforceable right on the internet and it shouldn't be thought of as one. It's wholly unrealistic. Everyone from Google and Amazon down to Linus Torvalds has said this.

So you don't give a shit about your privacy ? 

 

Then developing security systems is useless as it can be hacked if given enough time.

[patrickjp93]

To bring my usual quote: "There is no 100% secure lock for a door, so I am leaving my house wide open"

It requires physical damage to undo a lock with anything other than its key. Destruction of property is a separate issue. Like I said if nothing is stolen or damaged frankly I don't mind the idea of having a watcher. You'd get quite bored anyway.

[patrickjp93]

 

 

So you don't give a shit about your privacy ? 

 

Then developing security systems is useless as it can be hacked if given enough time.

 

Yes. Any seasoned IT manager will tell you the two greatest weapons in security are obscurity of the system and the rate at which the systems are changed. It is pointless to have a security system because it requires around the clock surveillance for a breach and it will be breached unless you consistently update it and change it. Also, layers.

[cesrai]

It requires physical damage to undo a lock with anything other than its key. Destruction of property is a separate issue. Like I said if nothing is stolen or damaged frankly I don't mind the idea of having a watcher. You'd get quite bored anyway.

No it doesn't, I can just pick the lock here see this channel.

[patrickjp93]

No it doesn't, I can just pick the lock here see this channel.

There will be damage to the knob and lock, hence why forensic scientists discover it so often (shocker). That's still destruction of property.

[cesrai]

Yes. Any seasoned IT manager will tell you the two greatest weapons in security are obscurity of the system and the rate at which the systems are changed. It is pointless to have a security system because it requires around the clock surveillance for a breach and it will be breached unless you consistently update it and change it. Also, layers.

So your saying just because it can be breached we shouldn't have security systems ?? just to clear things for me.

[cesrai]

There will be damage to the knob and lock, hence why forensic scientists discover it so often (shocker). That's still destruction of property.

Prove ? you also wouldn't notice that it's been picked or not.

 

And same applies when your hacked, your can find out if you have been hacked or not quite often (shocker).

[patrickjp93]

So your saying just because it can be breached we shouldn't have security systems ?? just to clear things for me.

When it comes to a digital system you hook up to the internet, yes. People who steal your computing resources should be punished (bot nets, viruses, etc..), but it's absolutely pointless to EXPECT privacy on the internet. It's a pipe dream. Everything is cached somewhere and eventually someone will find it and trace it back to you if so motivated. It does not matter how we try to fortify the internet. It's the very nature of digital systems.

[LukaP]

When it comes to a digital system you hook up to the internet, yes. People who steal your computing resources should be punished (bot nets, viruses, etc..), but it's absolutely pointless to EXPECT privacy on the internet. It's a pipe dream. Everything is cached somewhere and eventually someone will find it and trace it back to you if so motivated. It does not matter how we try to fortify the internet. It's the very nature of digital systems.

you can still protect yourself from most of them though. I see your point, but being able to kick a vast majority of intrusions out before they even get in is beneficial to up-time of the system, and with it, the company's profits

[patrickjp93]

Prove ? you also wouldn't notice that it's been picked or not.

 

And same applies when your hacked, your can find out if you have been hacked or not quite often (shocker).

I'd notice fairly easily. I choose softer metal surfaces for my knobs and locks specifically for that reason. The tiniest scratch will show up. As long as you steal nothing from me, damage anything, or move anything important out of place, I really don't give a damn if you peer at my personal life. It's boring. Maybe it violates your sense of security to be vulnerable, but that's the very nature of life. It's better to accept that and move on than try to waste so many hours and days of your life trying to fight it only to end up miserable.

[patrickjp93]

you can still protect yourself from most of them though. I see your point, but being able to kick a vast majority of intrusions out before they even get in is beneficial to up-time of the system, and with it, the company's profits

If you attach anything critical to the outside world you're a fool. In cyber security you trust no one and nothing without all the keys and live verification.

[LukaP]

I'd notice fairly easily. I choose softer metal surfaces for my knobs and locks specifically for that reason. The tiniest scratch will show up. As long as you steal nothing from me, damage anything, or move anything important out of place, I really don't give a damn if you peer at my personal life. It's boring. Maybe it violates your sense of security to be vulnerable, but that's the very nature of life. It's better to accept that and move on than try to waste so many hours and days of your life trying to fight it only to end up miserable.

I agree with your point, to a cerain extent. i dont mind being watched if the watcher has no intent of using the information he gathers against me. but as we know, that is usually the whole point of it. so i prefer not to be watched

[patrickjp93]

I agree with your point, to a cerain extent. i dont mind being watched if the watcher has no intent of using the information he gathers against me. but as we know, that is usually the whole point of it. so i prefer not to be watched

Again unless you're doing something illegal, that's rarely even possible, and we have laws which punish such edge cases like black mail and extortion.

[imthewalrus]

Don't most Mac Pro users have a fire pro? That means that many amateur graphic designers rely on openCL. 

[cesrai]

When it comes to a digital system you hook up to the internet, yes. People who steal your computing resources should be punished (bot nets, viruses, etc..), but it's absolutely pointless to EXPECT privacy on the internet. It's a pipe dream. Everything is cached somewhere and eventually someone will find it and trace it back to you if so motivated. It does not matter how we try to fortify the internet. It's the very nature of digital systems.

Then the IBM system you talked about that banks use can be hacked and I'm sure banks are connected to the Internet, so we shouldn't make security systems for them, or even or even government systems for example ADEC is the educational console in Abu Dhabi and it's connected to the Internet and it can be hacked so we shouldn't make a security system for it, even if it got hacked and it's data was tempered with and changed would cause a crisis, imagine your whole educational record gone or occupations diapering. 

 

It maybe a dream but still it isn't a excuse to stop caring about it and ignore it.

[LukaP]

If you attach anything critical to the outside world you're a fool. In cyber security you trust no one and nothing without all the keys and live verification.

Well sometimes you need to. take the government as an example. they need to have all the information gathered in some server (or a datacenter). but then every office needs connection to there, if a citizen wants to change something or whatever (just an example)

 

You cant expect them to set up a closed LAN over the entire country just for that. No, you use strong encryption and lock stuff down as much as you can. Yes there is a risk of theft, but its a much smaller risk with security measures, than without

[cesrai]

I'd notice fairly easily. I choose softer metal surfaces for my knobs and locks specifically for that reason. The tiniest scratch will show up. As long as you steal nothing from me, damage anything, or move anything important out of place, I really don't give a damn if you peer at my personal life. It's boring. Maybe it violates your sense of security to be vulnerable, but that's the very nature of life. It's better to accept that and move on than try to waste so many hours and days of your life trying to fight it only to end up miserable.

Not always you know there are pros who do this and they leave no traces of scratches.

 

Just because you don't give a shit doesn't mean I wont, I would like to have my privacy and I wouldn't want/allow anyone to get into my house without permission even if they didn't damage,steal,etc.

[LukaP]

Don't most Mac Pro users have a fire pro? That means that many amateur graphic designers rely on openCL. 

The amount of Mac Pros is not significant, in the big picture. Perhaps in the "prosumer" world yes, but all in all, not really. 

[patrickjp93]

Then the IBM system you talked about that banks use can be hacked and I'm sure banks are connected to the Internet, so we shouldn't make security systems for them, or even or even government systems for example ADEC is the educational console in Abu Dhabi and it's connected to the Internet and it can be hacked so we shouldn't make a security system for it, even if it got hacked and it's data was tempered with and changed would cause a crisis, imagine your whole educational record gone or occupations diapering. 

 

It maybe a dream but still it isn't a excuse to stop caring about it and ignore it.

No, the mainframes are behind two external computer sets. If a single one of them detects a fraudulent access or attack the three layers immediately separate from one another until the threat is evaluated or expunged. If you can't reach the mainframe in the first place, much less have time to analyze it while also avoiding two separate security suites in the layers between, you don't have much of a shot to get anything useful for another attempt, and you'll be tracked and routed and have police up your ass in hours or less.

 

It's foolish to directly attach anything critical to you to the outside world. That said, some applications these days require it, but they do so with the upmost care. Frankly though I don't trust my money to banks anyway. 

 

The system you describe is foolish. There should always be paper backups made when a record is created digitally. To not do this is to leave everything up to chance.

 

Yes, the sheer investment in security bogs down modern economies severely. It's better to just deal with the perpetrators directly rather than try to keep them at bay. 

 

It's not an excuse. It's just raw reason.

[patrickjp93]

Well sometimes you need to. take the government as an example. they need to have all the information gathered in some server (or a datacenter). but then every office needs connection to there, if a citizen wants to change something or whatever (just an example)

 

You cant expect them to set up a closed LAN over the entire country just for that. No, you use strong encryption and lock stuff down as much as you can. Yes there is a risk of theft, but its a much smaller risk with security measures, than without

Or society could grow up and we could just start indiscriminately killing criminals and correct societal behavior. We're attacking the symptoms and not the problem, and thus we lose far more than we gain.