Re: rarely update my home rooters
I presume BSD has something similar to Fail2Ban that you could use for non-keyed systems?
6176 posts • joined 31 May 2010
I presume BSD has something similar to Fail2Ban that you could use for non-keyed systems?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
No home button. I only see a back button, not a back and a forward. No "star" button for enabling bookmarks. Buttons for common apps like lastpass, ghostery and refcontrol aren't visible, so I am unsure if you just don't have them installed, or you UI doesn't show them.
There doesn't appear to be a bottom status bar, so I'm unsure how integration of things like TrackMeNot works, and it gives the impression that it will be one of those ADD nightmare "appears when it wants to, disappears when it wants to" sort of things. No idea where NoScript shows up in your config.
Your config may look superficially like a usable browser, but it's missing a lot of the critical elements.
"It looks exactly like the previous version here." probably because you used the default UI for the previous version and not the truly "classic" UI that was obtained by enabling the menus. You know, the actually usable UI? The one without the stupid single "Firefox" pull-down button/menu thing?
Except that the classic theme restorer
a) doesn't bring back the UI I actually used and wanted
b) have a mechanism for management at scale
Who cares if the others are webkit based? Chromium or Opera are fine browsers, and with better enterprise management.
"Alternatively, install the Classic Theme Restorer extension. It reverts the fucking awful new interface to a usable one."
No it doesn't. Not without a LOT of fucking around. Even then, you can't get something that's exactly like the true classic theme. You know, the theme you got when you enabled menus on the previous version? You just sort of end up with an awkward abomination. Worst of all, there's no way to create a configuration that's "mostly usable" and then push it out to all users. You have to set it up manually for each user/system you install on.
1) Firefox's new look is a horrible, mutated, awful mess of fuckery compared to Chrome's fairly smooth interface. It's "like chrome" in the same way that AOL is like Windows 8.
2) Chrome has a task manager that has increasingly proven useful.
Given that Chrome has finally almost reached plugin parity (on plugins that matter) with Firefox, Mozilla has to actually compete on merit. If you betray me by changing the GUI without giving me a simple option to return to the previous GUI then I will abandon you. Pure and simple. Give me choice or get right fucked.
Damned straight. I started converting most of my sites to Chrome or Opera after the UI change. They didn't have a "stop sucking" button in the browser, and I don't particularly enjoy being Microsofted. So fuck 'em, I've got better things to do than try to contort 50 plugins into shape just to make the bloody thing look normal.
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!
Actually, Microsoft is making a profit. But they're doing so by taking a page from the HP book; murdering everything good about the company and tactically doing away with products, services and staff with little-to-no regard for the strategic implications. They treat their customers, staff, partners and developers with overt contempt because the only thing that matters to Microsoft's brass right now is quarterly profits.
There is no strategy at play because the board has vetoed any such thing. the closest they can come is a massive gamble on "the cloud" and "mobile", but that's a sucker's game because you don't win at either of those by alienating your entire customer base and ecosystem. Both require trust, and "mobile" requires some semblance of "cool". Microsoft can't accomplish either while grasping at quarterly numbers with blatant desperation.
Compare to HP which has just come through that particular looking glass and is now desperately trying to invest in R&D, only to have a huge problem hiring decent talent; it seems nobody wants to work for HP anymore because their name is "mud" amongst the bright and shiny engineers of the world.
Yahoo! is viciously cutting the deadweight in a desperate attempt to stem the bleeding, but thye have no discernible long-term strategy at all.
Amazon, OTOH, makes losses for tax purposes. They are investing in massive, massive growth at the expense of profits because their play is "utter market dominance." The goal is to be the only name in the various games they play, so that when the others are beaten back they can turn the knobs, Oracle style, and extract as much revenue as they want.
Google is doing fine, thankyouverymuch, on the quarterly numbers and so is massively investing in R&D. They plan to become the world's first true megacorp, an American chabol with overtones of Weyland Yutani. They're patient and willing to put the money and research into it.
Apple have everything they want and seem to have found a balance between researching new products and markets and simply raking in the cash. They have created an aura of customer, partner and staff trust and that allows them to absolutely dominate the consumer market.
Dell have realised that Wall Street is interested only in slitting it's throat in the quest for quarterly gains and has gone private. The goal here is to reinvest massively in research and completely change the basis of the company. It's a long-term strategic play - and a huge gamble - but if I had spare dollars, I'd bet on Dell. They seem to know what needs to be done and are slowly, but surely setting about doing it.
IBM is in a bad place. Wall Street is baying for blood and IBM is having to sell itself off a piece at a time to keep them happy. Their R&D occupies a larger and larger % of revenue as they sell off their various tentacles but is demonstrating a fairly flat return. The only hope they have for survival is R&D, but they are unlikely to be allowed to keep it.
Lenovo looks at all the Americans and shrugs. They'll let the yanks bear the R&D costs, deal with Wall Street. They don't have the concerns the other do and so they have decided to do one thing, and do it well: sell as many widgets as possible as cheaply as possible. Since everyone else is abandoning the "selling commodity tangible widgets" game, Lenovo just sits on top of a pile of money grinning like a Chesire cat. The mass market belongs to them and they know it. Given this, they are investing in acquisitions and starting up proper R&D in order to plan for the future. Eventually, someone will make widgets cheaper than they can. They intend to be ready.
So none of these companies really directly compare to one another. They are all trapped with different problems and have different approaches and hurdles to overcome.
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."
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.
Yep, sure, corporations are people. When they do wrong and affect the lives of thousands of people they get away with a slap on the wrist. A person who managed to inconvenience thousands of people - or cost hundreds/thousands of people thousands of dollars - would end up in jail, or faced with a fine that would bankrupt them.
Yep. Everything is fair and on the level. Move on, nothing to see here...
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.
But it's perfectly okay to refer to grown men as "boys". Or any other derogatory term, for that matter, hmm? Just, heaven forbid, don't use a slang term to refer to someone with a vagina!
"I would point out that, while that's true, the graduate population is a much easier statistic to get and probably reflects the total population of appropriately qualified applicants. "
Except that's full of shit. The IT industry has a much higher % of white males as extant practitioners than graduates. New graduates are simply more diverse, and it is irrational to hold the whole industry to that standard. To do so would be to say to every white male "we're sorry, but because this industry existed for 30 years as overwhelmingly white and male we're going to massively limit your options for getting a job. Sorry you don't have any say in how you were born."
In an industry that has already largely achieved artificial equality then basing it off of graduate %s may be rational. For IT, however, it's not. People older than 25 don't just die off, you know. We keep working in the industry into our 70s.
The stats that need comparing are company make-up vs the total appropriately qualified populations, not simply graduate population make-up.
So you only use graduates as your comparison barometer? Why? Why not the totality of the industry, including those who have been working in it for some time? The demographics of current graduates probably look nothing like the industry as a whole.
Also, we have to look beyond just the tech industry. CxOs don't have to have tech backgrounds to run a tech company. Same with secretaries, janitorial, marketing, etc...
I'd say your proposed means to answer my questions demonstrates a great deal of bias on your part, almost like you have a predetermined conclusion you'd like to discuss, but need a way to twist facts or narrow the discussion so that the your point seems valid.
Question 1: how does the % of $_minority in $_company compare to the % of $_minority within the general population?
Question 2: is a company bad/evil/racist/etc because it has the same % of $_minority as in the general population, but not the same % of $_minority as there are whites/males/etc?
Question 3: Question 1: how does the % of $_minority in $_company compare to the % of $_minority trained to do tasks relevant to the company within the general population?
Question 4: is a company bad/evil/racist/etc because it has the same % of $_minority as are trained to do the tasks relevant to the company, but not the same % of $_minority as there are whites/males/etc?
Question 5: are such audits actually about equality at all?
Question 5a: how/how not?
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow.
That's fine. You love the ribbon. I loathe it. The difference between you and me is that you seem perfectly okay with removing from me the choice to use one or the other. I don't care if you have the ribbon. Ribbon it all up. But give me the choice to disable it and re-enable my menus.
Your way isn't the only way.
Once, not so long ago, I to was one of the loudest Microsoft evangelists. I still believe that they employ many of the best and brightest our planet has to offer and that they have some of the best tech.
But I no longer believe in the company, it's leadership, or it's direction. I don't trust Microsoft. Considering how much I once did, that should say rather a lot right there.
"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!
"We're going to chase the fortune 2000 companies, government, military and their big, fat margins just like every other company (big and small. The rest of the world? Meh. Fuck 'em."
Microsoft decides not to ship form factor that has been proven by iPad mini, Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire is eschewed in order to double down on the existing models that don't sell particularly well.
Microsoft's tone deaf approach to comprehending markets continues unhindered. Why would it want to ship a model that actually is usable with one hand and comfortable for the majority of individuals?
None if this would ever have happened if he weren't using some fly-by-night high-risk startup. Proper enterprise vendors with proper enterprise support is what's needed to prevent these sort of things from happening!
You know...I can't even type that with a straight face anymore. I am going to print this article, roll it into a tube and beat the next person who talks about how Nutanix SimliVity or Maxta aren't "proper" vendors to within a micron of their cognitive capacity.
Please do tell UNSW that all future record attempts are invalid unless a playmonaut observer is included on the trip to verify events for Vulture Central.
(Also: good job those guys!)
"a great sales organization always listens to the customer, first and foremost."
Now, it's been a while for me, but based on the actions of American corporations I am pretty sure those words count as treason under US law. I presume the fellow in question will be hanged soon?
"So while plod might come around to ask if you saw someone doing a four fingered shuffle in your garden, you yourself would not be under suspicion of any crime."
They'd find a crime to suit, or just make one up. You used the internet. You're a terrorist and a pedophile.
"You'll get your computers, tablets, laptops etc back eventually...."
Really? Because I know some folk who are damned well innocent who've not gotten their stuff back after two years. Besides, the way laws are structured it's virtually impossible for any of us to be innocent of everything. Our lives are on those machines. Search them hard enough, you'll find something to jail them for, even if it's not what was on the original search warrant.
"No actually, in court the police and CPS would have to prove it was you, which would be impossible."
Since when? The US and UK moved to "guilty until proven more guilty" ages ago. When it comes to the internet, presumption of innocence was ejected. It's not going to be returning.
Actually, you know the really horrifying part? I've being doing commercial content creation for startups for long enough that - when there's a need to - I actually can speak the lingo. It makes my skin crawl. I have achieved a state of actually being able to understand these folks and even converse in their twisted dialect.
But the first - and only - true "Cloud OS" (in the sense that it runs virtually nothing locally and is designed for mobile and cloud apps exclusively) is Chrome OS. So is Microsoft's "mobile first, cloud first" (customer last) approach in fact a ringing endorsement that Google is the future?
Enquiring minds want to know...