So GoDaddy is supposed to be animal friendly?
Wasn't this the same organisation where the owner (and/or CEO?) went out and personally hunted and shot and killed an elephant in Africa in order "To protect the villagers livelihood"?
105 posts • joined 24 Jun 2009
Wasn't this the same organisation where the owner (and/or CEO?) went out and personally hunted and shot and killed an elephant in Africa in order "To protect the villagers livelihood"?
I've seen agile implemented with varying degrees of success, and produce products with varying quality, quantity and delivery time (not necessarily exclusive). It's been my observation that the main thing that causes agile to be majorly neutered is when people start seeing it as an "answer" that will make their life easier.
One particularly disastrous project I saw (and was involved in cleaning up) the team said "We're going to be agile now, so we don't need to plan anything". They then proceeded to each take a bit of the system, not talk to each other, and code it. In that case they didn't know what agile was, but even when people do, they want agile to just go off and fix that problem for them. I'm sure everyone on an agile project has encountered someone saying "We're agile now, so I don't have to do x". As the article said, that's not really what it was about.
In my opinion the only way agile works is if everyone in the process, from analysts to designers to developers to testers to managers to customers, invests time and effort in doing their bit for the process. Agile requires more ongoing effort than waterfall because with waterfall you produce the deliverable for your step, then head off down the pub. Agile requires everyone at every level spending time every week from day 1 to quite a way after day of release.
It's better. You could argue that's like watching only odd numbered star trek films, but I use win 7 at work, and there's really not a problem with win 8.1 compared to that either. Its way faster than both Vista and Win 7, it's stable, and it runs everything I want to. Can't complain about it.
Worth upgrading from 7 - no. However when you're on Vista (or as someone suggested they were, still on XP) it's not only a better OS, it actually runs stuff you need to use nowadays. In my case the forced upgrade came from needing to use Visual Studio 2012 (will not install on Vista). I can see why 8.0 was hated, but 8.1 is really quite smooth.
The only annoying thing for me is that other people with these high res laptops are automatically being put into 125% dpi scaling which is making my job as a developer way harder (admittedly, I should have accounted for it, but wpf is not really helpful with that and I thought I could get away with it).
But that would take the attacker's hand off making the guard "useful".
Yes, Guards on swords are useful.
The silly thing is that the guard on that sword is strong on the edges, and fundamentally vulnerable on the bit you refer to (getting your fingers rapped). This part is of course mechanical and as we saw in the Phantom Menace with Darth Maul, it can be chopped (conveniently) in two, so this one I assume breaks up into three. So a useless guard against the thing it's guarding against.
It was my initial reaction as well, but I've been thinking it through, and it would actually be pretty hard to chop your own hand off with the guard of your sword. The angle you'd need to get your wrist to would be an incredibly weak position, and nobody would consciously (or even accidentally) do it.
Perhaps those more experienced in fighting with broadswords could correct me, but as someone that has practiced martial arts, and does know the basic shape of such techniques, I just can't see how you'd do it (or for that matter, why if it were the case, broadswords had any kind of guard in the first place).
Ok, that's 2 dell adverts in one day.
I am confident you won't publish this, I just want to let you know that I am sorry that you've sold out so badly. TheRegister once reviewed products and actually talked about them, weighing pros and cons. There would be analysis and evaluation of products. Bygone days from a time when the tech press was already massively subjugated, but we could count on a magazine called TheRegister.
Did you even see one? Maybe I'm wrong, you might be an enthusiast who's really excited about this new kit. However when an "article" doesn't even suggest there might be a negative about a product, readers get suspicious. You could at least have said "Drawbacks? none that I've come across so far." Or "regurgitated press release, oh yeah that's how I do my job".
People generally want to write off losses they haven't made. HP actually blew $10bn on the deal, and they really don't have anything to show for it.
This is not boring, it is a very interesting article. I run windows Vista, it cost me £200, I don't think it's as bad as people say and would happilly keep using it for 3 more years. However MS decided not to support VS2012 on windows Vista, as a software developer I need to be able to use that (especially as work computers are rubbish and I want to get my much more powerful home computer compiling our code).
So I need to upgrade, question is do I upgrade to win 7 for probably about £100, and have this problem again in about 2 years time, or pay what's likely to be about £200 to jump to 8 now it might be usuable, and kick the can a bit further down the road.
This article contained useful information for me, though I'm still not sure now the spectre of a win 9 has be dangled in front of me - damn that last paragraph.
Seriously, for a massive overhaul of their IT systems, with costs in the millions, a miss by two months is really not even noticeable. It sounds like they have actually done a really good job (delivery wise, though you did mention performance issues).
Your argument put simply. TrueCrypt worked. It cannot unwork, so much as to find that it didn't work. If that is the case you would hope the open investigation would find that. To suggest it does not work without reason is odd. If there is a vulnerability, you have to wonder where, as it's just using standard algorithms.
My position is that until proven otherwise, Truecrypt (the thing using a variety of algorithms and hashing codes) works. Maybe that's naive, but then maybe we didn't send Edward Snowden to the moon.
According to the following: http://medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/ , opting out just removes some more information from what they send, it doesn't stop them sending it.
I hope this is a joke I haven't got. Why on earth would a policeman need designer gear? Are those app devs that they're getting to write the apps all happening to be skilled in Objective C? There's a huge amount of traction in the developing countries for cheap tablets. Perhaps buy up a load of old Surface RT tablets that no-one wanted. It's just as easy to write up a report on it, and they'll be a hell of a lot cheaper.
As companies try to tie you to their services, it increasingly breaks consumer confidence. My last 3 purchases have gone:
Nokia Lumia (recent, so I can't be sure if it's a great improvement)
Each time I moved because I was pissed off with the constraints of the device. My iPhone would not work without pledging my undying loyalty to iTunes and binding everything to Apple. I moved to the open platform, suddenly Google Play would periodically start on my phone, and I couldn't uninstall it, it appears contract phones from 3 are not able to. Then other google services started running in the background, without any user interaction. So I move to a windows phone. Granted it doesn't tell me what's running, but so far it seems to be much easier to customise than the "open" platform that is/was Android. What I can be sure of is that those other two systems are driving people away by trying to take too much from them.
Just saying, the more Google tighten their grip...
Seriously guys, why the final paragraph about his representative? The man may have represented people that may have been bad people (I don't even know if those accused were guilty), but is it really fair to tar a man with that? I find it unlikely that he was able to do any substantial research into his representation, and just used a lawyer he was advised to.
I'm happy to accept I'm dull, though Willard's post here already shows that he was just using that term to provoke. However what I really don't get, is that for all the people that do genuinely look on me as a geek, or a dull wierdo, is what do they do that's so interesting?
Are these people arriving at work riding a kangaroo? Do they enter the office jumping from a plane, then parachute in through the 5th floor window? What do they do???
If you're interesting, or know anyone who is interesting, please write to me with the answer at "this post, the register forums, Vulture Central, London".
This still exists in our codebase, I've checked the source control history, and it has not changed since the migration 4 years ago, I still don't know what it is talking about:
// Note: Important, when changing this remember to
If you have enough experience of Agile (which you appear to), I think you'll know that it is a very loosely applied term. I've seen many projects that have been approached as "Agile", which actually interpretted as "We didn't want to plan or spec anything, we just wanted to start coding".
If you imagine instead that the management were incredibly poor, and had not applied *Any* methodology to the project. What do you think they would answer when asked what their methodology was? Chaos? No, they'd pick that mysterious Agile thing they've heard of, which sounds like it doesn't involve doing much management.
I see there are people on here displeased with the changeover, and you probably have cause (I don't personally care). However I don't think that's representative of the 119,000 users that appear to have left. I suspect that the much more obvious reason is that they changed their official provider from Be to Sky. As people here have reported that they were encouraged to do. Co-incidentally, sky announced 119,000 new subscribers.
I think that as much as I'd like to see Sky nobbled a bit, this is a simple bit of book keeping that has got a reg hack worked up over nothing.
#Smudge1 - Sir, communication monitoring is in place, we're hearing everything... it's really quite disturbing, please turn it off.
#Smudge2 - No, we must monitor ALL communication!
#Smudge1 - Well we do have this bank of emails and phone calls between one of our people and a newspaper exposing our entire operation, after all we do hear EVERYTHING!!! Shall we stop it?
#Smudge2 - That's exactly what they're expecting, let's confuse them. We'll let the story leak out, and demonstrate ourselves to be unable to control our people, and totally unaware of what who our own people are talking to, despite having complete access to their communications, and those of the journalists. No-one will believe that we can hear everything then!
#Smudge1 - Brilliant Sir, lets just hope this conversation doesn't leak out onto a discussion board.
I'm sure there's something more flashy going on here, but wasn't there some PIN functionality in SQL Server 7 that loaded a table into RAM? I seem to remember that it was deprecated because of potential instability and little performance gain.
The concept of shoving the table into RAM isn't new, so what's the big change? It's nearly done anyway by the clustered index cache, so there must be some game changer here I'm not understanding.
Also, how's it going to work with regards to clustering, will the pinned state of the table be shared among servers?
It all seems a bit airy to me, bit like when they announced the Filestream data type, which turned out to be a complete non event.
Your criticism here is tenuous at best, as others have commented, and certainly not deserving of a whole article flaming someone. This article reflects more on you than Fry, as it just shows an irrational level of hatred, and a willingness to further degrade The Register into just being your own personal ball of hate.
It's fine to suggest a reason to why they made the mistake, but the fact is that it was innacurate. It's not really much consolation to the stranded tourist that it was a genuine mistake, they want results. Google provided, Apple didn't. If the data was so bad, why just Apple as the victims?
You've already reported the map sucks, and by all accounts it does. The fact Apple are recruiting in no way implies that they believed this to be the case, that they were panicking, or that they believed that new developers would mean it would suddenly be fixed.
In fact I'd fully expect that, regardless of the state of the application, you would see job adverts go up now. This is because they have completed (arguably) the first development iteration, and are now getting ready for the next release. This often involves increasing the team as you don't start a new application with 1000 devs on board - it would be chaos.
I can't help but feel that this article is a thinly veiled excuse to continue bashing apple. I quite enjoy bashing apple, but would like some new material to do it with rather than another re-run of "the maps don't work".
Don't you remember that they "provided enough technical detail to convince The Register the diagnostics software doesn't represent a privacy threat to handset owners"?
A gift that keeps on giving, because it's a story you keep on sensationalising. Where are you today then? Is it bad or benign?
"even when they're entered into webpages protected by the SSL protocol".
SSL is protecting the transport of information. It is not designed, intended, or able, to protect against a key logger. 3 articles on this have all made this sensationalist statement, as though it is in some way breaking the security that SSL provides. If I had a key logger on my PC it would also be able to read things typed into a web page 'protected by SSL', because SSL is protecting me from bad people outside of my PC, not the bad people on it.
It doesn't get deleted from the internet. Their 'Axing' of it involves not developing it any further. You'll still be able to download it, write apps for it, same as now. It just means there won't be a Silverlight 6. Given all Lovefilm need is something to play videos, what is the problem with that? There aren't any new features needed for their purposes. The only risk they're taking from that perspective is that it might not be supported in later versions of browsers (I don't know what the story is there).
Microsoft's PlayReady tech (the DRM system they use) is very secure. Say what you like about MS business practices and attitude, their tech guys are not idiots. They've experience both of screwing up DRM, and then securing it again (remember that WMP DRM debacle). This DRM is their new attempt at it having learned from those mistakes. You will not be able to hack the stream to go to anything but the silverlight control.
You're just embarrassing yourselves. SSL protects the data during transport. This happens way before then, this is not even part of the communication stack. This is logging key presses, nothing to do with transport.
To be honest it draws the credibility of this Eckhart chap into question given that he felt it was important to point out. He should have made it clear that SSL isn't intended to protect against this sort of situation.
If I had recently hacked a load of networks (PSN etc.) gained millions of credit card details, and then wanted to maximise my returns on that, what would be a good tactic?
1) Using about 80% of the cards create a large amount of interference in the banks automated fraud detection, causing the systems to hopefully overload, almost certainly take a longer to freeze money, and claw it back. The receipients would be innocent, making it very hard to identify other non-innocent recipients.
2) use my remaining 20%, while the systems are down to a crawl, transfer money to a load of dodgy accounts, and quickly get that money moved on through various laundering techniques, before the banks can catch up and claw it back / follow the money.
My friend recently moved his virgin account to a new location, and just as a reward for staying with them, they gave him one for free. They are just throwing the things at customers now.
We never got to see through the vision of the T1000, so we don't know what he saw.
Three days from what exactly, oh yes - release! That's when a game has passed QA standards and been certified internally to be good enough for release. Skyrim was going to make a mint, and Bethesda knew it, still rather than a careful testing program they have stuck with their tactic of using their most enthusiastic users as unwitting beta testers.
It's why I haven't bought it yet. I'll pick it up when they iron out the issues (probably be on sale by then).
Surely these will be sitting atop a TV set, as the name suggests, so they'll need a license anyway for that TV set?
I think they really are actually after people like me who don't have a TV set at all, but use BBC services like the iPlayer catchup and BBC news (those 0.2%). I'd gladly pay this if it wasn't such a hassle to have to remember and actively go and pay for it. As someone else pointed out, with 97% of the population owning a license, about 2% who should own a license but don't, and now 0.2% like me, can't we just say "bad luck" to those other 0.8% and take it out of taxation?
Not 'attacking IIS', I'm saying that once the system has been comprimised by the SQL injection attack, I suspect it is then using the fact you can easily find IIS and configure it (now that it has permissions) by writing an automated script to do it. Thus the websites that are seen as comprimised are ASP.NET, because most websites running on IIS are ASP.NET. I'm not suggesting an IIS vulnerability.
The nature of the attack doesn't appear to use anything specific to ASP or ASP.NET. So my unfounded guess as to why there's such a high proportion of sites that are ASP.NET (yet not all of them) is that the automated script that is run once the server is comprimised is targetting IIS. This makes some sense to me, as IIS is easily locatable, and easily interrogated and manipulated by a script (by design, not by mistake). This would make it an easy target for someone wanting to do a mass automated attack. I'm sure they could have targetted other web servers, but I guess they haven't.
From evidence given, nothing to do with ASP.NET. By the sound of it, it's about crap programmers from any database back end. Can you just clarify the ASP.NET vuln?
A massive quango trawling all the smut they can find and building up a blacklist!
Actually given the spirit in which this appears to be being approached, that would be intolerable as it would expose those workers to porn. Instead there'll be a whitelist of what we can access, and sites will have to pay to be on vetted in order to be allowed to be on it.
Or did someone just sneakily pocket half a mil? It seems a strange number to settle on.
They seem to make loads of money, get caught rarely, and keep the cash. I mean, how much of this hundreds of millions will actually be reclaimed? I'd settle for a cool 10 mil (easily going to fall through the gaps here), no-one's getting caught, it's seems crime really does pay!
Let commence the conspiracy theories regarding deliberate mis-classification.
Oher information could include:
Your (approximate) current location at time of login, the time of day you tend to browse the site, your prefered browser, the articles you read, the length of time you spend reading an article, etc.
I suspect they want to collect habits to link to identity data, rather than identity data itself.
"I thought the 80% recommendation was wrong, but I followed it because otherwise I'd be liable"
The prof says:
"I hear that Microsoft (and others) are pushing for this to be mandatory, so that it cannot be disabled by the user"
He then links to a blog post which says:
"There's no indication that Microsoft will prevent vendors from providing firmware support for disabling this feature and running unsigned code."
Perhaps they should talk to each other and compare notes?
No idea who GSSGLE is. Perhaps it should be GOOGL€ given they are based in Ireland.
If I were some big name like Ferrari for example, why would I really be so worried about people going to Ferrari.xxx, it's not like you type it by accident. If people want to do a load of porn based in Ferraris, so what?
I'll write out the summary of the "grilling" in advance.
MP: Did you lie to us before?
MP: These other people say you did.
JM: Well I didn't.
MP: Okay, that pretty much cuts off all my questions then.
What does that email even mean? It just seems to be 3 totally unrelated sentences. Who "used to be such a nice man"? The person complaining is a woman. I'm obviously missing something because everyone is making such a fuss. Could someone take a second to explain what he's saying?
You can prevent something without the assumption that the person is guilty of it. For example you can wear a condom to prevent contracting an STD, that doesn't mean you're accusing the person you're sleeping with of having one, just that you don't know for sure.