4903 posts • joined 31 May 2010
- ← Prev
- Next →
Fun times! Good fun for all. Made me smile.
"We aim to build products that deliver the features, security and reliability customers expect, and we will address any concerns the government may have."
That's the greatest cover your ass quote of all time, even if horribly inaccurate.
1) Microsoft products have way more features than customers expect, or know about.
2) Microsoft products are way more secure than people have come to expect based on past performance. With the exception of IE, they're actually not bad, for being among the most attacked products out there. The issue is typically third party software.
A) Microsoft won't price products at a level that customers can actually afford. See: VDA, SPLA, or the new "per core" licensing. Thanks,
B) Microsoft won't address any of the concerns that customers may have regarding their products*.
So a great bit of fluffy PR faffery...but ultimately means nothing.
*From soul-destroyingly bad UIs to tentacular omnishambles licensing through to privacy or even something as simple as guaranteed product lifespans to ensure that we don't get PlaysForSured in this increasingly Cloud First, Mobile First, Customers/Partners/Developers/Staff last world.
When the servers are turned off because they don't represent "ongoing shareholder value" for Microsoft, but you rely on them...what then? Hmm? And just who can see your data, under what circumstances? What is Microsoft doing to reduce that to "you and only you can ever see your data"?
A bunch of evolutionary updates and even dual SIM support. It sounds like a a great update that could really benefit Microsoft's Windows Phone customers.
...what's the catch?
Re: " You build underground. "
I'm sorry, it's a personality flaw. I'm functionally incapable of lying, and as a consequence I am functionally incapable of being politically correct. I say what I think, and as such am generally uncensored. In fact "you're an idiot" was positively polite, compared to the raw version that appeared in my brain after reading that fellow's reply.
I get the whole "you're supposed to look better than the other guy by being all prim and proper and grey poupon and professionalism." I'm just actually incapable of it.
I could say "I disagree with you so thoroughly that, upon careful examination of your response, I believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in your reasoning process such that it affects your ability to perceive and act upon reality in a logical and rational manner." The problem is that sounds haughty and pompous and I'm not entirely certain the individual in question would get it. "You're an idiot" is more pithy, but accurate and bears with it social connotations of exclusion, ostracisation and even mockery that I really do kind of want to include in my riposte.
Does the desire to fire that barb make me a bad person? Almost certainly yes. I try to be a good person, but I'm still very human. I don't tolerate well people who are selfish. I hate them on so fundamental a level you'd think it was genetic.
The individual in question's responses indicated a selfishness that incensed me. His responses were individual-centric and his vision narrow, even mundane. The scope of his understanding was small and so he tried to reduce everyone else to his level.
When talking about something so critical - and so essentially non-individual - as the long term survival of our species, to insist on the scope of the one to the detriment of the many is infuriating. It's like being in the middle of a conversation about diverse stellar phenomena and having some dude walk in and say "I saw a black hole explode once." It's preposterous on it's face, and so jarring as to be almost physically painful.
Maybe I wouldn't have been so petty if he hadn't begun his comment "That's a silly idea, and you know it." Maybe. Starting his response with that line made me feel a lot like Foghorn Leghorn trying to have a serious conversation while Henry Hawk keeps trying to challenge him to a fight. "Go on, git, ya bother me!"
I care nothing for the individual claiming the singularity is about to explode. By tomorrow I'll have forgotten then exist at all. But I absolutely want to make it clear in no uncertain terms to anyone reading this thread that what they're espousing is at best horrifically misinformed and at worst purposefully misleading. "You're an idiot" seems a particularly expeditious means by which to make my feelings in that matter known.
Now, as to why I feel the need to jump in when someone is wrong on the internet...when you solve that one, I'll be quite interested. I have narrowed it down to comments made as factual statements that are both demonstrably incorrect and where decisions made on the basis of those incorrect statements would negatively affect large numbers of people. For reasons beyond my ken, those comments bother me a great deal and I am compelled to attempt to set them right...
...but I am still work on "politely".
Re: " You build underground. "
No, you're actually an idiot. There's lots of stuff that could happen to the Earth that would wipe out any underground colonies. Especially if they didn't use a closed system. Plus, Earth is tectonically active; those colonies have extra risks there that they simply don't on Ceres or Vesta. (I never said the moon. The moon is a ridiculous place to colonize.)
Survivability of the species is about not having all your eggs in one basket. That means as many colonies as possible. Earth will eventually die. Period. Nothing we can do will stop that. It will be a lifeless ball of rock a billion years before the sun consumes it. Indeed, according to our best estimates there is less than a billion years left to this planet's ecosphere, probably less than half a billion during which it can support sentient life on the surface.
There is no good reason to stay on Earth except sentimentality. Earth is a great big gravity well where most of the really useful elements for high technology sank to the core long ago. Other than offering a magnetic feild and a trapped Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere it doesn't offer a hell of a lot we can't get elsewhere, and it has it's own problems to overcome.
What we need is to have colonies in small gravity wells. Ones where the cost of leaving the gravity well is negligible. We need colonies that can access resources like platinum group metals which make various flavors of high technology much easier. We need colonies that are not only self sufficient, they have enough resources to build colonies of their own.
You make the ridiculous statement that Earth having colony worlds decreases the chances of the human race surviving. You don't explain how that is possible. You just assert.
Would people on the colony world have increased risk compared to Earth? Yes. At first. Eventually, however, they'd adapt, the colony would grow and it would be as safe as Earth. Safer, actually, given that Earth seems to be filled with 7 billion humans all intent on wiping eachother out, while a colony would not only be a smaller and more homogenous population, they'd be focused on survival, not conquest.
And that - right there - is the biggest reason to leave Earth. Even if you have some sort of religious belief which prevents you from understanding that things like metor strikes can and will wipe out Earth-bound humans, the sad truth of it is that we will probably wipe ourselves out on this planet before long.
Humanity must spread to the stars in order to outrun it's own worst nature. It's as simple as that.
Adding colony worlds doesn't reduce the possibility of those on Earth surviving. It does make Earth irrelevant to humanity's survival in the long term.
The fact that you have such a fantastically poor understanding of science that you A) think we should live on the surface of a planet in a big gravity well as a colony world and B) think that a colony is particularly hard (as opposed to merely outrageously expensive) means you shouldn't be allowed to have this conversation at all.
We know how to survive in space. The #1 problem with space colonization isn't survival. It's that getting the materials needed to survive requires hauling them out of this accursed gravity well. Fortunately, that isn't a problem, long term.
We can send robots to Vesta and Ceres to refine the elements required for survival, construct structures, and prepare the way for colonists. We can - with enough money - assemble a ship that either has a massive fission-based power source which could generate a magnetic shield, or enough lead shielding to protect colonists on the journey.
That is all that we need. Once on Vesta or Ceres, with an army of mining robots at their command, the colonists will be able to create new ships and new colonies for a fraction the cost that could be accomplished on Earth. They will never want for space to expand, never have to murder eachother over ideology. If they want a place to practice their own vision of how things should be, they can just pack up and go. The entire universe will be waiting for them to do so.
Earth is a cage, not a lifeboat. This big, fat gravity well is a prison. The goal is not - and never should be - to create new Earths. It is to move beyond the need for such an incubator, and to explore the stars without the requirement for one large ball of rock filled with billions of us that can't get along.
All we need is that first little push. Not the moon, or Mars...but to new resources within easy reach and whose acquisition won't trap us for millennia. Earth is just one planet. It's not relevant in the grand scheme of things. Try not to get too attached.
We don't want to go to another planet because it will be safer for the individual than being here. The individual doesn't matter any more than the planet does. We want to make colonies both because we want to explore and because those on a colony world are safe when something does eventually happen to Earth.
Are the colony worlds more likely to experience catastrophic problems than Earth? Yes. But enough of them ensures humanity's survival. Whereas staying on Earth alone ensures humanity's demise. Eventually, all planets - and all colonies - will die. Every single person, no matter where they are, will die. But our species might survive, if we spread far enough - and fast enough - to outrun not only nature's worst tantrums...but ourselves as well.
Re: Just goes to show...
There are two great places to move to in relatively easy reach: Ceres and Vesta. You don't need an atmosphere or a magnetic shield. You build underground. What's awesome about Ceres and Vesta is that they have lots of important minerals that we'll need for construction, lots of water and low gravity.
If you put a half kilometer of rock between you and space then you have a lovely shield against all sorts of radiation. Underground, building sealed pressurized environments is easy. There's enough gravity that with some relatively unspecified equipment we can maintain bone density, but still low enough gravity to make getting in and out of the gravity well very inexpensive.
More to the point, both Ceres and Vesta are large enough that they can sustain sizable populations for quite some time...and they are in the middle of the main belt, so sending mining vessels out for additional volatiles or rare metals is cheap and easy.
I don't know why you think a colony has to sit on the surface of some rock with a big gravity well. That seems silly to me.
Re: Just goes to show...
No no, really, everything's fine, nothing bad has happened to us so far!
So long as I die with more money than all of you, everything's fine and who cares about the rest?
Re: On eof those "We can build a new internet that's X times faster if we scrap the old one first"
Don't see why. The existing internet's pretty shit. Full of monied interests and governments trying to remove civil liberties. Let's get a proper decentralized meshnet going with a brand new protocol and ditch the existing Internet, eh?
IPv6 isn't seeing rapid adoption mostly because the astounding arrogance of the people who created the protocol resulting in our getting a protocol that requires tearing up the entire internet to implement it. You need to buy at least one new everything and to implement it securely you need to often replace "one new everything" with "several". The cost of the transition is enormous for end users and SMBs and the ongoing costs are higher than IPv4.
And all because whiny baby developers were so sad about having to ad a few extra lines of code to deal with NAT that they turned purging it from IPv6 into a religion. What the world wanted was IPv4 with a larger address space and a few under-the-hood enhancements. What we got was a clusterfuck designed to restrict how we can run our own networks and strip away any hope of privacy from the average job by making damned sure that an IP in fact DOES map to a person.
If a new protocol showed up with concrete benefits that didn't require throwing out the baby with the bathwater it would be uptaken in short order. The problem underlying IPv6 is that, ultimately, we don't want to give up the good parts of IPv4 to get at the good parts of IPv6. We're being frogmarched towards it with a gun at our heads, but you can't expect that we're all that happy about it.
Re: Humphrys can make inadvertent fun out of anything
"The idea that they would ever have come DOWN from the trees to hunt... well, it's just side-splitting."
Why? Dinosaurs were stupid. Hell, chickens have several million years worth of evolution on them. Being large and vicious doesn't mean nearly so much as being clever.
Lions, tigers and bears - oh my! - didn't stop us. Why would dinosaurs have? Do remember that the really scary stuff - gigantasaurus and so forth - lived in a world with massively different temperatures and atmospheric oxygen content.
Dinos lives in a world of much higher free oxygen. Most wouldn't be able to breathe in our atmosphere. So yeah, we'd have to deal with some truly terrifying things...but they're all more or less like what we've had to deal with already.
Our ancestors faces down dire wolves and saber-toothed cats, dined on mammoth and fought terror birds. While I, personally, wouldn't want to face an angry velociraptor or a pack of compys, that doesn't mean at all that we wouldn't have been able to take the bastards, if they'd made it.
Of the dinosaurs that could have survived to today more or less unchanged, I doubt there are any that would have truly threatened our extinction.
Re: Avian dinosaurs and mammals
I don't know about that. You make the rather large assumption that humans will make it out of the anthropocene. I see no reason to assume this.
Mass extinctions generally end up totally disrupting the ecosphere. Ecosystems suffer right down to the primary producers (and pollinators!) which ultimately ends up with the collapse of higher order food webs. We have no way of knowing if humans will survive that. At our current level of technology we would not. Will we develop the ability to survive without pollinators, let alone other primary and secondary producers?
If we can't survive, why would any of our dependent species do so? Even if we do survive, will there be enough scraps for the birds (or the bees?) That's before we start assessing the kind of damage currently occurring to the oceans. If the oceans go, we've had it.
So I think it's a crapshoot. We don't have enough data to know how it's all going to play out for our species, let alone any of the others. Hopefully some will make it. I'd like to think Earth has one more shot at sentient life before it moves too far our of the habitable zone. (500M years, give or take.)
Re: Avian dinosaurs and mammals
"why didn't the human beings survive <disaster X>"
Where <disaster X> is "the Yucatan impact event" the answer is "because human beings hadn't evolved yet."
Re: Avian dinosaurs and mammals
A) Dinosaurs were not cold blooded
B) They didn't get wiped out. Avian dinosaurs survived. (Small ones, mostly).
C) Some large animals (crocodilians) survived.
Why did the dinosaurs die out? Size, mostly. But also that they needed to eat rather a lot, and on a regular basis. Crocodiles, for example, don't eat much and they can survive off carrion for a long, long time. That's why they survived. Small avian dinosaurs and small mammals probably survived for the same reason. A combination of being omnivorous, small and able to live off carrion. Wide global distribution helps too.
Most mammals (individuals) and mammal species, as well as avians and avian species probably died off. But there were so bloody many of them in so many diverse little niches that they basically could live off the dead and dying for generations. At least until plants started to grow again and the planet began the very long, slow, miserable path towards healing.
I wonder what major species groups will make it through the anthropocene?
Re: Genuine question
Well, the Deccan traps were already acting up, but the Yucatan impact probably punched it into overdrive. What's more, the impact likely dislodged a few methane clathrates which lead to some additional oceanic die-off, and caused the climate to yo-yo around for some time, ringing like a bell until it stabilized. In all, the Yucatan impact event could hardly have happened at a worse time. There was such a convergence of miserable events, it's kind of amazing so many major strains survives.
Crocodilians, Amphibians, Lizards, Birds, Mammals and a lot of water-based life all made it through. But land and ocean fauna above a certain size didn't...and a lot of different types of plants were simply wiped out. The K-T event was huge. Not nearly as huge as the P-T extinction or the current anthopocene extinction, but still very much a major extinction event.
If we were around then, we would not have survived. Nothing our size would have. And that's worth pondering for those who believe space exploration is a waste of time.
Re: Fairly pointless
How do you take action against a company selling things internationally using the internet but which doesn't have a presence in your nation? For that matte,r how do you pursue libel or slander cases internationally?
Re: Comment comment comment
@Steve Davies 3
Actually, given that we have so many treaties with the US, I wouldn't be surprised if something like that ended up in a NAFTA court. Where US laws and Canadian laws conflict, Canadian judges don't tend to back down.
Re: Comment comment comment
"So what happens when a Chinese judge orders Google to forget about Tienanmen all over the world?"
IIRC, Google subsequently left China. Which was quickly followed by Baidu's absolute dominance over that market.
Yes and no. The result will be one 100Gbit standard that is 10x 10Gbit links and another that is 4x 25Gbit links. They will be mutually incompatible. You won't be able to connect one to the other without a very expensive media converter.
"That's not your Grandfather's Microsoft. And that's no bad thing."
So the catch is elsewhere. You download the upgrade and then three months later men in black suits bankrupt you, kill your family and pets in front of you? I'd not put it past the bastards. They'd probably charge you a "per user" fee for each of your loved ones they killed while they're at it.
Microsoft doesn't do things that benefit others. Anything that looks like they might be turning over a new leaf is just one more attempt to suck you in so that they can PlaysForSure you or strangle you slowly with horrific VDA-like licensing. Trust them and they'll do the financial equivalent of stealing your kidneys and leave you to die in a bathtub full of ice.
Good technology - even great technology - isn't enough. Condescension for customers, developers, partners and staff is so fundamentally ingrained in that company that every seemingly beneficial development is a feint within a feint aimed at screwing all of us.
They'll probably create a UI that everyone likes and then change it something that required Microsoft-proprietary 3d glasses and can only be manipulated using Kinect. Just so they can laugh at the silly numpties who thought for a fraction of a second something nice had happened.
An no, I'm not bitter. This is me feeling generous today.
Re: Embrace, extend and extinguish
Amazon may have had a few outages - and frankly, Microsoft's uptime is worse - but outages are not related to nixing (or PlaysForSureing) customers. Microsoft is the one with the reputation for overt condescension towards customers, developers, partners and staff combined with a history of cutting every valuable program and reneging on ever important promise they've made.
Amazon has not - to my knowledge - screwed their customers in grandiose Redmondian fashion even once. Microsoft are not trustworthy. Amazong might be. And "might" is a hell of a lot better than you'll get from Microsoft. Microsoft will betray you, me and everyone else. It's only a matter of time.
Microsoft can not be trusted. And they don't give a fuck about that, either. They have no intention of earning anyone's trust because they don't feel they need to do so.
Cloud vendors? Anyone But Microsoft, thanks. I've learned my lessons the hard way.
Re: Loong term view
"You are basically complaining about your lack of planing and your inability to use Powershell or other more suitable tools to get the information that you need..."
Yep, you definitely work for Microsoft. Condescension and blaming the user as SOP. Bravo.
Re: Loong term view
"you clearly need marketing 101 lessons."
If you're in marketing, why the hell are you on these forums? These are for technologists, not shills. You're a bad person and you should feel bad.
Except they'll make insurance mandatory. The uninsurable will probably just be moved to "relocation centers" where they will be "processed" into a state that is no longer a burden on society.
Citizen 1, you have not performed the required amount of cardiovascular exercise as per the computer specifications and you have eaten items that are not on the optimal list in quantities that differ from your schedule. Your insurance premiums are now $875 per day. To reduce your premiums you will follow the exact regimen laid out by the computer.
Citizen 2, the computer has determined that you have genetic predispositions towards three diseases considered expensive to treat. You are uninsurable and have been banned from receiving medical treatment, as society has determined that it will only spend its resources on individuals with a class 7 or lower risk category. As such the risk of employing you has risen to the point that now employer will employ you; they will not expend time and money training you when there are lower risk citizens that are easily acquired. Suicide booths are provided for your convenience.
Re: Geek culture?
Not all geeks are gamers, but some gamers are geeks. I don't see the problem?
Mine's the one with the D20 in it.
Re: Kick in the nuts
"because, well, I'm an SE at Microsoft..."
My condolences. I hope you never have to explain or attempt to justify VDA to anyone, ever.
Re: Home router patching? You're having a laugh...
No. It doesn't. I use a regular Polycom Ethernet phone with no problem using QoS in the firmware, but if I needed "regular phone" stuff that would be...Microtik? I'd have to go look in the server room to verify.
Re: Home router patching? You're having a laugh...
It is in mine. I went out of my way to find an ALU Cellpipe 7130. It's Just A Fucking Modem. Then I use a WNDR3700V2 as a router, with OpenWRT as the firmware. It's glorious!
Re: rarely update my home rooters
Re: rarely update my home rooters
I presume BSD has something similar to Fail2Ban that you could use for non-keyed systems?
Re: rarely update my home rooters
Based on that config, I suspect you have no management interfaces open to the net. I've seen stock home routers pwned in under an hour by placing them directly on a modem because they had management ports open to the net.
So with basic security you can get away with more stability. Without it - or where you have a production requirement for more risk - I suspect that security updates mean a lot more.
Re: Base stations.
If you don't want to be tracked, don't turn it on.
If you want civil liberties, don't use any of the tools required to participate fully in modern society, hold a well paying job or even obtain such a job in the first place. Why stop there? Why don't you just tell people that if they don't like what governments and corporations do in their name they should kill themselves? Fascist.
Re: I still can't understand how no-one goes after amazon
A loss of $126M for Amazon is significantly less than 1% of revenue. Amazon make a loss to avoid taxes, not because they are pricing competition out of the market. Even a lobotomised judge can understand that one.
Re: @John Smith 19
"My point was, if we think that security researchers are just one slap in the face -- "free! T-shirt! Yay!" -- from becoming criminals, why are all programmers going to be pearly white?"
They aren't. That's why independent security testing is required.
Insider threats are something every company has to consider.
Re: Remember, business people, there're telling you about it because they like you.
"This is a Board level issue. Someone saves you a $m+ hit from a hack a script kiddie could mount at any time and you want to hand them a f**king tee shirt? How about $100k instead?"
The answer is quite simply arrogance. Given the contempt that a lot of these companies have for their own customers, partners and staff, what makes anyone think that they'd have greater consideration for security researchers?
The size of the company doesn't matter either. Lots of SMBs - in my experience software developers are the worst for this - believe they simply know better than everyone else. Their vision is so pure, their execution so flawless and their designs so beyond reproach that anyone who questions them is not merely an affront to their genderhood, they are blashemers.
Consider, for example, Microsoft's approach to the Metro UI. Customers, partners, developers and staff who didn't like it were considered apostates and cast out. That same contemptuous arrogance resonates throughout the industry, ultimately resulting in a - to put things politely - "combative" relationship with security researchers.
It's also why in-house penetration testing and security research is so often left until repeated failures force the issue: the consideration is not merely one of money or "shareholder value". To accept that such things are required is an painful affront to the ego, self importance and exceptionalism of powerful alpha nerds that run the place.
It's easy to point to majors like Yahoo! and say "that t-shirt thing was board-level penny pinching", but even with a company that large it isn't that simple. The issue has to be raised with the board. Who is going to do that? The devs? For all the reasons above, that's unlikely. And once it is raised, what is the board going to do...probably talk to the devs and see if it is "really necessary".
This is why I think the BugCrowd guidelines are a great idea, and something sorely needed in our industry. They are an objective standard that you can present to a board. You can say "here is the best practice, regardless of what the alpha nerds say."
You will likely never convince the superprogramer owner/operator startups that this is required...but it should help convince companies like Yahoo in the future. Any company where the board isn't made up of alpha nerds with a personal investment in the code itself should be able to be convinced by something like the BugCrowd guidelines.
It's sad that we need stuff like this...but it is very human that we do.
Re: T-Rex was..."Cretaceous Poultry™!
As I understand it, Tyrannasaurids probably had feathers as juveniles, but lost them as they gained adulthood. (Much in the same way some birds go from down to feathers.) The idea being that the feathers provided insulation to juveniles, but that as adults their biggest issue was actually how to lose heat, not retain it.
Re: Jurrasic Park IV
Have you ever been around an ostrich? In person? Now give the ostrich a more robust body, and claws the size of a ka-bar knife. Oh, and make the wings end in hands that have even more claws...and fill the beak with razor sharp teeth.
"Fluffy" dinosaur my ASCII.
This would never have happened if they'd just used a proper enterprise database vendor instead of one of those fly by night startups. What were they thinking? Is this what taxes pay for?
"And generally, that copy is inferior to the original, so that while it may appear identical to human eyes or ears, it will be very different at the bit level..."
Did you drink a gallon of draino before posting? What does it matter if the copy is different if that copy happens to be identical to human eyes or ears? The media exists to be consumer by human eyes and ears. Nonhuman sentiences can make their own damned content.
Re: firefox ESR updated too
"Why on earth are you offering a choice and doubling your support workload?"
Because I respect people as human beings and don't see them merely as offal. My users do not exist to do my bidding, I exist to ensure that they have the most efficient possible tools to accomplish their tasks.
A new UI is not more efficient simply because some developers say that this is so. If you've worked with a UI so long that all basic tasks are entirely autonomic then switching away from that UI is highly inefficient. Any supposed efficiencies of the new UI must be pretty damned impressive to be worth the switch.
I am also aware that not everyone is the same. Not everyone learns the same things at the same pace and not everyone has time to learn a new UI just because I feel like pushing it down.
It is my job to provide a stable and efficient working environment for the people I serve. In turn, I will only give my money to companies that provide tools that help me meet this goal. If several tools are available that can meet the goal, then I will choose the tools from the company which has most proven itself to respect choice, because providing that choice is an intrinsic part of meeting the diverse requirements of the very human people that I serve.
You, personally, might be as asshole alpha geek with a god complex, but I don't need to wave my phallus around and proclaim it mighty. In fact, I have nothing but contempt and loathing for those who do, be they sysadmin or developer.
Sysadmins serve users and vendors serve sysadmins. End of.
Edit: to answer your question about why should Mozilla/Microsoft/etc maintain two UIs the answer is simple: because they have absolutely no way of knowing which is better until it's been deployed to the mass market. They can run every study they want, every beta they want, but it's end user acceptance that is all that matters. Creating a new UI and saying "this is how it is Und Zou Vill Like Ut" is the height of arrogance. I don't tolerate arrogance in my vendors at all.
By all means, create a new UI. But make it optional. If it's better than the old UI then over time people will switch voluntarily. Eventually those using the old UI will be in a distinct minority. Then you can release the code for that old UI and let the community manage it, if there's interest.
That is a respectful and orderly way to transition from one UI to another. The Microsoft and Mozilla model is nothing but contempt manifested as code. Why the hell should I support any vendor who treats me with contempt?
By extension, why should any business or group of users put up with a sysadmin who treats them with contempt? We provide a service. We don't dictate terms.
Re: firefox ESR updated too
See, the problem is that it doesn't take "just ten minutes" to get the UI back. You can get part of the way there in 10 minutes, but at best that's 80% of the functionality, and it still has an issue where things that used to be in the status tray end up to the right of search bar instead. Not good enough.
And yes, it is an issue to distribute the file, especially in an environment where users will log into a mixture of stateful and stateless VDI instances, and where I expect to be able to push out the file to my users so that they don't experience a change in UI, but where if they choose to change the UI, their choice is respected.
Funny that. Respecting choice.
And you're damned right I expect to have a choice regarding every single major UI change to every single piece of software I use. As the customer, why shouldn't I? It is a standard I enforce on any developer I pay for my software and if they don't feel like complying then fuck them.
It's not that hard a concept, really: offer customers choice. Let them decide if your new idea is better than your old idea. Don't Microsoft your customers and tell them "it's for their own good". That's bullshit.
The correct way to have handled this on Mozilla's part would have been to have a little dialogue box pop up when Firefox started that said "Hi there, we made a new UI. We think the benefits of this new UI are A, B, C and D. If you want to use the new UI hit this button. If you want to use the old UIs (both the truly classic UI and the one we now call classic) then hit this button. You can change at any time by going here and clicking this."
Bam. Problem solved. Users have choice. They can shift from old to new at their leisure, or not at all. There's no plugin. There's no cursing at the fucking thing because it gets part of the way towards the old UI but never quite all the way. You are asked if you want the new UI, and if not, you are given the old UI with zero fucking around.
That's the experience I strive to give my users, and I consider anyone - developer or fanboy sycophant - who seeks to deny me (or anyone else) that choice to be an outright soulless bastard. Fuck all such people. With a tractor. Sideways.
Re: firefox ESR updated too
Maybe with enough work I could make the UI into what it was before, and thus how I want it to be. "Distributing" it to my users then would be another challenge, as the corporate management capabilities of Firefox are quite shit, so I get to come up with new scripting methods. And of course, after all that effort, assuming that it actually recreates the old UI - which I am not convinced of - there's zero guarantee they won't just decide to screw me again.
Alternately, I can take my custom elsewhere, cease all my donations to Mozilla and tell them to go fuck themselves. They decided to force an unwelcome change upon me in a very Microsoft manner with the justification that if I did whole bunch of extra work I could sort of have things somewhat like the way they were. For now.
Nope. Fuck that, fuck the developers and fuck anyone and everyone who thinks that's an acceptable way to do things. You don't pull the rug out from under people then tell them it's their fault because they aren't willing to do the hard work of sewing a new rug to stand on.
If there is a change that you as the developer want to see occur then it's your job to convince me as the user that I should embrace it. If I don't want to embrace it then you should give me the choice of sticking with what I like and know. If not, I go elsewhere, and take my money with me. I have no moral obligation to continue supporting any company that refuses to meet my needs.
Oh, I don't. But unlike certain anonymous cowards, I don't drop my pants and cream for England every time I think of the Beast of Redmond. Microsoft is not doing particularly well. They've kept their EPS relatively flat, but only with sacrifice. They've had to murder everything good about the company and have put concerted effort into pissing off customers, partners, developers and staff.
Being "second in the cloud space" means fuck all. They are a distant second, when compared to AWS, and that cloud revenue is still fractional compared to what Microsoft was making on it's traditional markets. Markets that it is busy ceding to Apple and Google, I might add.
So let me be perfectly clear, Anonymous Coward, what I think about you and the fact that you perpetually fellate Microsoft using lies, damned lies, twisted facts and outright fabrications: I think you truly are a coward. I think you're the lowest kind of scum on earth because you won't even put your name to your comments, and yet you actively try to hoodwink and bamboozle good people on a regular basis. I think you're a vile, despicable, horrible person and I hope a lot of very, very horrible things happen to you. Anonymously. Over and over.
If you are going to lie repeatedly at people, put your fucking name to it so that we can choke you with proof of the fallacy of your words. Sitting in the shadows whispering sweet nothings about your corporate crush makes you worse than a marketing shill. I work with marking shill every day, and they at least tell you their goddamned name.
Now get the hell off my internet, you honourless bastard.
My life for Aiur!
Re: On the other hand
Well, I think the issue here is the question "were they grossly incompetent with their security"? My understanding is that yes, in fact, they were downright lax about security. After the compromise they doubled down on douchebaggery by proceeding to lie and cover up until they we provably caught out.
The settlement bit is them attempting desperately to dodge a full blown trail that would prove the above beyond a doubt. Which brings me to me "skewer the fuckers so that I can enjoy their mewling cries of agony, and leave them there until the insects strip the flesh from their bones and the sun bleaches those bones to the purest of white."
Re: On the other hand
Millions of people smoke pot. Yet the cops still bang up people in jail for possession of minor quantities. Does the fact that so many individuals indulge in this harmless pastime change the fact of it's illegality?
"He did it too" is never an excuse. At best, if enough people "do it too" you can make enforcement of that law impractical. But it's still breaking the law.
And no, it isn't fair. What is fair is that the people who run the company get in the same sort of shit as would happen if an individual were to do transgress upon others in an equal fashion. Corporations should not get off lighter because they are corporations. They should be hurt just as hard as we hurt individuals. If we would ruin an individual for an infraction of this scale then we should ruin a corporation for the same thing. Then - and only then - will we see any fucks given whatsoever towards concepts like security.
The way you phrased it A) would lock out all those of us who don't have a degree...and there's more of us than just make an "edge case". B) it sounded like you wanted to compare to the number of individuals graduating from the tech programs that year. I.E. that this year's graduates would somehow be representative of the industry...not remotely the case in IT.
Ultimately, in the fullness of time, the industry would ideally have a makeup that looks very much like the general population. To get there, we need to make IT seem open and friendly to individuals of all races and genders. I think, quite frankly, that should be the goal of all industries.
That said, if we are to judge the equality of hiring practices of a company, I believe we should judge the company based upon the gender/race composition of the available talent pool.
Judging a company based upon the gender/race composition of graduates will be dramatically out of step with the actual practicing talent pool in IT for the simple reason that the practicing talent pool - especially the older, more experienced individuals - is almost exclusively white and male.
By the same token, judging a company based upon the gender/race composition of the general population is outright bonkers because the available talent pool for our industry doesn't reflect the general populiaton at all.
Should we be putting effort into encouraging more diversity in individuals entering the feild? Absolutely. Should we punish, berate or chastise companies because they can't meet an arbitrary diversity standard when the talent pool they have to select from is so dramatically universe? Absolutely not.
If we go after Twitter/Google/etc and say "you need to have a diversity in your workforce that is roughly equal to the general population" or, worse, "you need to have a diversity in which all races are represented equally" we are crippling those companies. We are basically telling them "you must select only from amongst the youngest, most experienced graduated, and you must throw out white male applications, even if they are massively more qualified."
That has two very nasty effects. First, it dramatically depresses wages for white males, as they become persona non grata that only very small companies or those who flat out don't care about their public image will hire.
Second, it means a lot of very talented individuals who just happen to be white males can never contribute to the "big boys" because of the colour of their skin or because they posses a penis. This means that those smaller companies which pay less for their talent potentially get top quality labour, enough to drive the big guys out of business. This results in fewer jobs available for everyone, but also kills off the companies that were deeply invested in what I can only term "irrationally disproportionate false equality."
Unless there are a much higher % of really smart, talented people amongst non white males, the above seem inevitable to me. Mediocrity is okay under radically disproportionate false equality because the demand for bodies amongst a tiny potential pool of individuals will vastly outstrip any natural excellence-based selection pressures.
So what then? If you turn the Finger Of Shame towards these smaller, but now incredibly successful companies that are composed of cheap "reject" white male labour do you honestly think they're going to suddenly start having bad feels about the whole thing and slit their own throats they way they just watched their competition do? Or do you think they'll say "fuck it", stick their middle finger in the air and keep the "evil" white males on staff who made them successful?
So what then happens to those minorities? They go elsewhere, seek employment...but will they now face a stigma? A question around "are you getting the job because of diversity requirements, or because you're good at it? The last place you were at imploded!"
No. I think the best path forward is to work on encouraging diversity amongst those entering the feild and to leave those employing individuals the fuck alone. They have a hard enough time finding people who excel as it is without attempting to artificially limit the pool of talent from which they should be selecting. We need to accept that IT is radically UNdiverse as an industry, and that it will be for decades to come.
We shouldn't be punishing people for this. Using the stick is going to help noone. But careful application of the carrot will solve the problem in due time.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow.
"Whatever the aim of the project, there's 3,900,000 roubles - $US 111,000 or £65,500 - up for grabs."
Barely worth getting out of bed for. Becoming an international pariah for? Nyet!
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...
- Vid Mysterious BEAM outside London Googleplex ZAPPED