Reading the comments, I can only think one thing:
When did the tin-foil hat brigade take over this place...?
Show some scepticism, you lot: does what's being claimed seem feasible?
37 posts • joined 15 Nov 2009
Reading the comments, I can only think one thing:
When did the tin-foil hat brigade take over this place...?
Show some scepticism, you lot: does what's being claimed seem feasible?
The article is about the demise of a FreeBSD-based OSS project and your first thought is to bring up Microsoft...?
Since you mentioned it, if Microsoft's software is so awful, what does that say of the alternatives that people (and businesses) refuse to use even for free...? And it's *not* that Microsoft are entrenched: times were when there was nary a Microsoft server serving pages on the 'net. Now look at things...
I know Microsoft bashing is popular, with some factions of the IT society. But I just wish people would grow up beyond that phase, already!
I did not back this, so I personally am not invested in it. I was interested, but they did not explicitly state it was DRM-free -- at least not that I could find -- so I decided to wait and see.
A good decision, as it turned out.
Anyway, it seems to me that the developers do indeed have a communication problem, but not in the sense those defending them are trying to imply:
* Clearly, they promised an offline mode: Else why would they announce that they will not be able to deliver it?
* Clearly, they knew relatively early on that it will not happen: Tying everything in your game into data that must be retrieved from central servers in real time is not the kind of thing that crops up on you in the last minute nor the kind of thing you might not notice.
* Clearly, they knew it would not be a popular decision: Else why did they delay announcing it until practically the last second?
So, fundamentally an evil thing to do.
Now, I'm not keeping a list or anything, nor would I boycott anyone over this, but I will certainly not believe any promises from any of the principle developers involved, myself: show me the goods, and I'll buy if I like them.
How you decide to handle it is, of course, entirely up to you.
Look here, please:
Additionally, to point at recent, spectacular examples:
* "goto fail".
All software is complex and has bugs. But if it makes you feel all tingly and superior to laugh at Microsoft software, go ahead and knock yourself out! I'm glad it takes so little to make you happy.
While true that if one's updating an RTM Windows release that's a couple of years old then the process is long and several reboots are needed, why would anyone do that...?
Look into the wonders of DISM and be amazed!
Everyone would benefit from knowing more math. You won't get any argument from me on that! Especially statistics: tricky stuff, that!!
For example, here's an interesting statistic: "97% of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree: Global Warming is happening -- and we are the cause". From http://theconsensusproject.com/
Now the question becomes: who knows more math? The publishers of those 97% mentioned, or the average Internet commentator?
Interesting that you should bring up the flat Earth belief, actually.
Because the very earliest writings we have from philosophers -- what one might consider a scientist of yore -- speak of the Earth being spherical. Indeed, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth with surprising accuracy using very primitive tools sometime in the 3rd century BC.
This of course did not stop people who knew better from keeping right on believing that the Earth was flat. After all, it stood to reason that if the Earth were anything but flat stuff would fall off of the bottom of it, or something!
Can you, kind AC, being the enlightened Citizen of the Internet you obviously are, see which part of the analogy applies to you...?
Let me try and answer all the "they don't know what they're talking about!" arguments in one fell swoop:
They made it their live's work to know. If you, with a couple of documentaries or Reader's Digest articles or whatever under your belt, think you know better then, well, there really isn't a "nice" way to say this, I guess: you're probably mistaken.
As cool-dude Hank Green put it: "Scientists are not stupid!".
Link to video. It's well worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU
"Barely a decade after releasing its first 512MB SD card, SanDisk has unveiled a card capable of storing 512GB of digital material".
Not to be pedantic, but that's about a doubling of capacity every year, on average, no...? ;-)
There's a lot that can be done to make brute-force attacks useless before locking an account. Wait timers are good and simple. A lousy one minute delay between attempts would completely kill a brute force attack, while it would be just an inconvenience to the user. So:
0- Enforce password complexity. Should be simple when you already know everything about your user: "No, you cannot use that password because it was the name of your 3rd grade teacher's pet gerbil"... ;)
1- Start with a one second wait and double it with every failure. Cap at 128 seconds or something, to keep things sane. Else you'll very quickly effectively lock the account.
2- Lock the account only when hundreds of attempts are made in a single day or some such.
The details will vary and some fine-tuning will definitely be required based on the type of data, users, actual usage experience and whatever other attack vectors might exist (brute force attacks vs. denial of service, for example), but you see the basics. Not complex.
"...it is not your fault if you are using bad passwords because you are celebrities, not nerds".
That's not how security works. "Nerds" may elect to use full-disk encryption or some other less-used/more-complex security, true. But *everyone* needs to use secure passwords. At least for stuff they care to keep secure. It's not a complex concept, really.
Speaking of security: Apple doesn't have brute-force mitigation in place...? Excuse me while I clean the floor before I ROFLOL... :-)
"My point isn't a debate on climate change, my point is using events that fall outside the norm as 'proof' of an event that papers on climate change state regularly *not to use independent weather events as evidence of climate change*"
You are technically correct. Of course any single weather event cannot be tied directly to climate change. Weather, after all, is not climate.
But my point is that there's a difference between a paper intended to be published in a peer-reviewed publication and comments on a non-specialized Internet forum. The standard of evidence is different, certainly. Or should be, at any rate.
If you've been playing a die game for a while and certain numbers seem to be coming up more often, at some point you're entitled to wonder if the dice are loaded. *Especially* if virtually every die expert is jumping up and down screaming that they are. Even though it's still perfectly correct to state that if you throw a pair of dice often enough, an unbroken run of a million pairs of sixes is bound to come up. And nothing says that this run will not occur at the beginning of the die throwing experiment, either.
"It makes proper scientific review in the public more difficult with half-cocked cliches and ideas being bandied about".
I sincerely do hope that the future will prove me wrong (and believe me the wronger I am proven on this point the happier I would be), but I believe that a proper scientific review in public is all but impossible. The public simply does not understand science. Else no one would be "debating" evolution. Or anthropogenic global climate change, for that matter.
And don't forget that the actual scientist whose job it is to study climate are virtually unanimous that climate change is real and that we are causing it (the last count was more than 97% agreeing, I believe). They're done studying the evidence at the standard required by science and the verdict is in. It's just Joe and Jane Public that remain "skeptical" because they do not, I presume, understand what the big words mean or something. Sticking with the same big words and the nuance is not going to help explain things to them.
"Are you insinuating that the flooding and weather we are experiencing right now is attributable to anthropogenic global warming?"
Are you assuring us that they're not...?
I mean, not being a working scientist with a reputation to worry about, it seems obvious to me: all kinds of records are being broken, which's what one would expect with global climate change. More energy in the atmosphere means a more energetic atmosphere. Higher average temperatures mean more evaporation which in turn, since what goes up must come down, means higher precipitation.
"Parts of England have had their wettest January since records began more than 100 years ago, figures show".
"Israel experienced its driest January since records have been kept, with Jerusalem seeing almost no rainfall at all for the entire month". That's this past January. And that's about 70 years of records, I believe.
"The 2003 European heat wave was the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540".
"France's  summer heatwave killed a total of 14,800 people".
"Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the 21st century".
"[Typhoon Haiyan] is the deadliest Philippine typhoon on record. Haiyan is also the strongest storm recorded at landfall, and unofficially the strongest typhoon ever recorded in terms of wind speed".
"Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere."
...and so on. As I said: just watch the news.
Sure, it could all be a coincidence, but that seems unlikely to me, at this point.
"Perceived global warming"...?
Right... ignore the very real and tangible threat (I mean, have you watched the news, lately?) scientists warn us about and concentrate on the totally imaginary threat some sci-fi author needed as a plot device which the scientists assure us is impossible. Got it.
Until we have colliders that can exceed, or at least approach, the energy levels nature likes to throw around, we should be safe: everything we do, has already been done repeatedly before in the grand lab that is the universe. This, of course, is not very likely to happen because that "perceived global warming" will probably get us first...
That's not how it works.
No one gets Nobels, or any other recognition in science, for regurgitating old facts. Well, I'm too harsh: a B.Sc. and maybe a M.Sc. can be had this way. So any number of scientists would clamor to turn *any* accepted theory on its head if they could. Because that way they would at least ensure immediate recognition by their peers and, if lucky, their name(s) might be printed in textbooks hundreds of years in the future. Assuming there is one.
As to the severity of the consequences of climate change and whether we can afford to wait to "verify" them, well: they will indeed be quite severe, and I understand it's accepted that we're now past the point of no return as far as some of the milder consequences, so we will be seeing *something* -- I personally would argue that we are, right now, seeing quite a few somethings, in fact.
The argument now is whether humanity can afford to stick to its denial until the more severe consequences become inevitable as well.
Right now, the collapse (or at least the radical transformation, and not in a positive way) of human civilization in a few hundred years is tentatively on the table, I believe.
Care to raise, Sir...?
I like how many climate-change denial "arguments" seem to boil down to "[X] is cold, right now. Therefore, there is no global warming!".
That's not how it works, people. Unless you think "global warming" means Earth will turn into Venus overnight.
Let me point anyone interested in reality at a nice resource to help:
TL;DR: out of 9136 authors who published articles in peer-reviewed literature during the last 13 months, only one denies anthropogenic global climate change. There really should be no need to say anything else.
What *I* am interested in is how much you know about BitCoin (and most other crypto currencies).
Not much, is my guess, since if you did you'd see that whatever else it might be, a pyramid scheme it ain't: all crypto currencies I've looked at have a limited release volume planned. Off the top of my head, about 21 million BTC in the case of BitCoin.
So, you see, if anything BTC is less of a pyramid scheme than, say, USD... ;-)
I am not exactly sure where this notion that OCZ SSDs are less reliable than average comes from. Most SSDs I owned were OCZ and they're all still... well... not purring along, exactly, SSDs famously not making any sound, but are certainly fully functional. The same for about 5 other at work. Only one OCZ SSD in my vicinity has failed, in fact.
Admittedly, 10 SSDs a statistic do not make. But then I doubt the forum doom-and-gloomers each bought a thousand drives before coming to their conclusions. And if failure rates were really as high as some would have you believe, OCZ would have folded long before now. And no one would have been buying the pieces.
Facts of the matter are that the OCZ Vector is the best performing SSD around by any metric and that the Vector 150's 50GB/day for 5 years rating is the highest by far at its price-point. The only reason I am not buying a few right now for a storage server I am building is price and that Intel SSDs are good enough for what I need -- especially at 2/3's the price. Dammit, OCZ! Meet me half-way, here!! But a 50% markup on a mostly comparable drive...? And holiday sales mean you *decrease* the price, not increase it... Oh well...
I hope you were in a building with a well-grounded copper roof as you wrote that...
I completely agree! Because everyone knows that human population density is highest in the ocean.
Wait just one second...!
There seems to be a number of people who apparently think global warming is akin to turning up the thermostat on their central heating system.
It is not.
Global warming means, among other things, that there is (not "will be", note) increasingly more energy in the global weather system. This means that global weather is increasingly more... well, energetic, I guess. Meaning more extreme weather events: more rain here, more drought there, less ice elsewhere, etc. Think "major climate change", over time. It should be obvious that this is not good, to say the least.
And BTW, "we survived this long" is a poor argument to make when discussing future prospects of humanity as a whole, let alone our civilization. For one thing "this long" is not, in fact, that long at all: a few million years out of even the 550 million since the Cambrian Explosion is nothing, really. For another thing, look up the word "change" in a dictionary...
"Research" carried out by MISPWOSO, right?
Cats are predators (albeit small and adorable one). If someone doesn't know what that means, they should buy a dictionary.
I expect my cats to ideally be self-reliant. Such that if I stumbled into a freak wormhole while walking across my living room one day and died horribly in the vacuum of space several lightyears away, they would only be minimally inconvenienced.
"NASA's machines have been on the planet since Pathfinder landed on 4 July, 1997".
Actually, Viking 1 has been on Mars since August 20th, 1975CE. Unless it got bored and wandered off to some other place, of course!
"This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation... but is this not the ninehundred-year-old axe of my family?"
That's not to say I see the logic in paying so much for it, but just saying...
Look up Al-Khwarizmi, an 8th century CE mathematician. He did a few cool things, one might say.
I have to say, I *can* live with Metro and the new Start Screen thingy. I certainly will not love them, though that may come later -- Stockholm Syndrome, maybe...? -- but I can live and operate with them.
Let me first make clear that this is preliminary based on a few hours worth of testdriving the Consumer Preview with emphasis on UI usability and might change once I sink my teeth into this Release Preview, but:
The command line is largely the same, and there still is type-to-search functionality when one presses the Windows key and starts banging away on a keyboard. And I honestly cannot remember the last time I opened a Windows 7 Start Menu and clicked on it with a mouse. So Windows 8's user interface is, for the most part, compatible with the way I work day-to-day.
What will decide things for me is (as usual, I think) the technical stuff: how will it perform? Will it be stable enough? What new features will work how well? Etc.
Speaking of new features, Server 2012 looks rather sexy, I must say...
I recall reading it in the early nineties, myself...
No, really: the number of graphs and whatnot showing this exponential growth trend in computing power surviving several paradigm shifts is *huge*. Just Google it and see.
The difference is that a competent lock smith will have to turn up in person and do her thing at each and every lock, whereas a single breach of the DRM means there's now an easy-to-copy copy of the protected work out there.
If you want further evidence, or a practical demonstration, just look around and see all the movies, ebooks, games and whatnot floating out on the 'net. 99% of that has DRM on it in its source format. Surely if DRM did anything it was supposed to do there wouldn't be so much of this stuff out there clogging up the Inter-tubes...?
Fair enough, I guess: if you don't know what something means, then it's meaningless to you.
But please stop and think that, just maybe, it means something to others.
"Unlike disk media, flash media wears out".
Ah, yes! Explains why I never came across an HDD with a bad sector, much less a failed HDD. Indeed, I don't know where I came up with the term "bad sector" as magnetic media never fails, as the most-learned author pointed out. I guess that's just my poor mind giving out under the stress of all the awesomeness of this most magnificent article...
You know, RAID stands for Redundant Array of *Inexpensive* Disks. As I see it, if the disks you're using cost an arm and/or a leg, then you're doing it wrong. Any and all disks you use will, after all, fail at some point. So you might as well spend the money on proper redundancy and backups.
Sure, enterprise class stuff has its use. But only after you've covered all the other angles and spent all the money needed on all the other bits and bobs and are still left with either a pile of cash still to spend or a performance/reliability hole still to fill.
Also, the prefix giga- means "multiply by 10 to the power 9". Thus, 120 gigabytes (aka 120GB) is 120,000,000,000 bytes.
But I can see where you've made a mistake, there: Windows erroneously labels gibibytes (binary gigabytes) as gigabytes.
The prefix gibi- means "multiply by 2 to the power 30". So 120GB would be about 111.76GiB, which Windows will label as GBs and therein lies the capacity "lost by formatting"... :-D
I hope this helps someone.
The autopilot gives control of the plane to its pilots because it realizes it might be in over its head. Those pilots then proceed to literally fly the plane into the sea. And you conclude the right course of action is to *retain* the human pilots...?
I like Seagate. I really do. Until very recently, I wouldn't even contemplate using any non-Seagate drives, in fact.
But a quick check at New Egg, for example, shows only 2 internal 3TB drives: WDC Green and Hitachi 7K3000. If memory serves, the situation was similar with the 2TB drives, with Seagate trailing by several months.
So, where's Seagate's alleged technology lead?
You know, there *are* people out there with better things to do with their time than drive cars...
There also are people out there who should not drive.
In many cases, members of the first demographic who are forced to drive will be good candidates for the second demographic.
HDDs for backup? Really? Ever done actual backups, have you? Or are you speaking of your pr0n collection where... ehm... "quick access" trumps reliability, and loss of any specific chunk of data would certainly go unnoticed? Ever drop an HDD and then try to read data from it? I've had drives die from a 20cm drop, myself.
While I would agree that optical discs aren't ideal for long-term backup, an application for which they certainly aren't intended, they're a good poor-man's choice for the task, I dare say. And considering the number of operational 10+ year old CDs I have (hundreds) vs. the number of operation 10+ year old HDDs I have (0), I would take optical disc backups over HDDs any day.
That's not true! They can get a criminal from the smudge of a fingerprint captured off of a windshield through CCTV in bad weather!
I saw it on CSI (or was it X-Files?), so it must be true.
It's not the absolute price that decides things. If you try to sell something worth 5 cents, if even that, for a couple of dollars then people will naturally not buy it. Even though it's priced "in the region of a couple of dollars". But if you price your product correctly then people will buy it. If people will not pay what you would like to charge for your product, you either need a better product or a different market.
I get no end of people who would not mind paying, say, US$50 for a decent Windows/Office combo (not that Starter crap. The only use for that is if one has a VL agreement and just needs the CoA to stick on a case), but who would under no circumstances pay the current retail price. I don't blame them for a second: FFS, the current retail price for Windows and Office alone exceeds the price of an entire entry-level PC in my market!