Re: Thank you
"Having a country domain like .de under a country domain .tl seems ripe for confusion "
Perhaps less so than you might think -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.co
4465 posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
"Having a country domain like .de under a country domain .tl seems ripe for confusion "
Perhaps less so than you might think -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.co
"if you dropped the country codes, some countries might have to work harder to censor the internet (i.e. China)"
I doubt it. Such censorship depends rather more on controlling the physical wires leading in and out of the country. As a thought experiment, bear in mind that you can already surf by numeric IP address if you choose and *that* doesn't stop the censors, despite the horrendous balkanisation of the IPv4 address space.
Hardware vendors can't agree on the cables used to plug their kit into a PC, or the power supplies used to recharge their toys, or the standards used to encode videos, DVDs or HD variants thereof.
Hardware vendors also insist on shipping their own "enhanced" (and after six months, unsupported) versions of free software, rather than simply pushing the necessary mods upstream.
Stick to a common API? I'm not holding my breath. More likely is that they try to sue the shirt off anyone who tries to implement such an API.
"Oh and if win10 is anything like win 8, we're going Linux throughout."
Win8.1 is a free upgrade from Win8.0 and well worth trying if the 8.0 interface drives you nuts. (It isn't massively better, but at least you get a sort-of Start menu (perversely via right-click) and you can stay on the desktop and pretend that Metro never happened.)
Win10 Tech Preview is *a lot* like Win8.1. The Start menu (left-click this time) is quite astonishingly ugly and uses a scrolling alphabetical list rather than a cascading menu, but is just about functional. My impression so far is that the free upgrade is a no-brainer for anyone on 8.x.
I installed a clean Win7 the other day. There were over two hundred patches (over and above the "latest" service pack). It's now out of mainstream support and vanishingly unlikely that MS will ever issue a service pack to roll-up that lot. Increasingly you will find that hardware vendors won't have a Win7 driver. MS aren't going to retro-fit SHA-256 support for kernel-mode drivers and so after 2016 it will actually get quite hard to properly sign a Win7 driver.
Win7 users ought to be considering their options at this stage and Win10 is a free upgrade that will probably run all their existing code.
@AC: I think "the government" would tell you that MS most certainly can "end of life" a product. In the UK, at least, certain parts of the government were amongst the big losers from that decision and there was nothing they could do about it. (Well, unless you count pulling their fingers out and implementing sane IT policies, but that's obviously ridiculous.)
It is to be hoped that airport IT systems have the USB sockets physically secured and that they are not connected to the internet.
"Care to explain why?"
I can't speak for the OP, but from the article: "Windows 8.1 is up from 10.04 per cent in January to 10.49 per cent in February on Netmarketshare's numbers, and from 14.27 per cent to 14.78 per cent according to Statcounter."
So two groups try to measure the same thing and they come up with figures that differ by about a third. Back when I was in science classes, if I had two measurements that differed by that much then I'd expect to have my knuckles rapped if I quoted either to 2 decimal places. The correct way to interpret these figure is to call them "experimental proof that at least one of them hasn't got the precision they are quoting".
It's also a news reporting service that, lacking any private financial backing, has to maintain enough balance that it doesn't upset any major UK political group. Many other countries would benefit from a similar arrangement, but the politicians running the show in those countries don't like the idea of balanced reporting so it doesn't happen.
Those outside the UK might take issue with the suggestion that the BBC is balanced, but that's probably because the BBC doesn't have to keep foreign politicians happy, so it probably *is* less balanced in its foreign reporting.
@MyBackDoor: Yes. I know BBC stick commercials into their world-wide broadcasts, but the domestic channels show the programs without interruption and without ads in between either.
How else could you televise cricket?
The fact that they have had this idea long before it is commercially feasible is, for me, strong evidence that it is obvious. And yes, I'd re-iterate all the examples of prior-related-art mentioned by commenters so far.
But I'd also re-iterate the observation that this is how the system works. It's utterly broken. Get used to it, or else direct your anger at the politicians who have fouled the system rather than at the companies who are simply playing by the current rules.
That's the key difference between "giving it away" and using the GPL. If Kevin and Scott had used the latter, they'd have a legal basis on which to take the idiots to court. As it is, they no longer even have the right to enjoy their own work. That's obviously wrong, but the remedy is simple -- use the GPL (or similar) so that the stupid laws work in your favour.
"Still, I suppose we should be grateful..they (finally) claim full C++11 compliance only four years after the fact."
Well I followed the link but I saw no such claim. In fact, there is at least one admission that C++11 support is "partial".
Still, having spoken out on these forums in support of multiple HTML implementations, I suppose I should welcome the fact that MS still try to produce their own compiler rather than borrowing gcc or clang.
"Every child should be taught to solder. And type."
Coz when they are grown up, PCBs will be 3D-printed and text entry will be done by voice recognition.
"It'll be even worse if companies actually USE these domains"
Ah, no, because if merely registering the name is evidence of malicious intent, then making it possible to register the domain must be even worse. Expect to see ICANN in court soon for conspiracy to bring down all intellectual property rights everywhere.
Those 7 million will be doing something more productive, as Tim Worstal has been trying to explain on and off in his columns for a while. We have (as he pointed out most recently) gone in just a couple of centuries from employing 99% of the population in agriculture to employing 1%. Nobody now wants all those "peasant" jobs back. Nearly all of us have found something else to do and even the unemployed are better off for it.
"Scratch introduces the basics of programming in a fun and accessible way. It cannot replace coding, though."
Scratch lets you learn about variables and conditional logic, without having to worry about syntax errors or organising multiple files. If you are teaching at primary level, that's a simplification well worth making. Funnily enough, Scratch was created by researchers who wanted to target that age group.
At secondary level, syntax and files aren't going to give you the same level of grief, so you might as well use a more powerful language. On the other hand, that language needs to have an easy way of delivering visually appealing output, because most of your class aren't going to be interested in writing a program that prints a set of log tables.
@Paul129: Two small points: firstly you concede that the network already isn't the bottleneck for your case, and secondly have you tried sneakernet? "Transferring disc images" is quite possibly the one thing that sneakernet is best at.
Umm, China's in the Northern Hemisphere...
You can get them for cars, too, and that was always supposed to be the mass market application that brought prices tumbling down. These things are a lot cheaper than they used to be; 20 years ago, $300 wouldn't have bought the box your camera came in. But yeah, not quite "toys" yet. Perhaps the Chinese will oblige. FLIR-the-company is on the pricey end of the FLIR-the-product market.
I have a ...me.uk email address and still suffer from both of those problems. (The rest of the address is just lower case letters, dots and hyphens, so I'm assuming that some fool is complaining about the domain. Perhaps we should ask t.berners-lee to see if he's ever had problems with his amazingly unusual name. Oh, and as I write that, yes I'm thinking now of our regular commentard with the name O'Brien who is, if you'll forgive the phrase, "beyond the Pale".)
Happily, raised eyebrows amongst otherwise-tech-savvy colleagues doesn't stop anything working.
Sadly, email "validation" code does. Perhaps we need to send that memo round again:
You (yes, you, personally) cannot validate an email address. Every time you write code to try to do this, it costs you time to do it, time to deal with the customer complaints, and lost customers from those who can't be bothered to complain and just take their money elsewhere. There is no business case for trying to validate an email address. It just makes you look like an idiot when it goes wrong (as it will, see above). Stop it, you cretinous fuckwit. Go back over your life and remove all such checks from code you have written in the past.
It needs to pay for itself on a timescale less than the period for which you have a reasonable hope of predicting the price of electricity.
Deployment will be limited to those properties that can retrofit the battery and that itself may be costly if the battery is large. New builds would be fine, though, and that may be a large enough market for starters.
On the plus side, if this can be deployed widely then it is a game-changer for electricity generation because you wouldn't need power stations that can switch on and off at short notice.
So, um, what breakthrough in battery technology makes this possible in 2015?
"With that kind of subconscious exclusionary policy, how do resolve the issue so that results or merit is the only factor?"
Sounds like you need to start hiring the HR staff on merit. The rest will follow.
If I understand it correctly (and posting here is the easiest way to find out), your internet cafe customer would have to be connecting to an SMB share that had been made available on the public internet (not via VPN). Furthermore, to let the attacker use fake group policy to take over your machine, you'd have to be logging into a domain via the public internet. If you are doing either, then I don't think you give a monkeys about security and you are probably already running a rootkit both on the client and the DC.
It's an interesting case, but I think there's a reason why the design flaw went unnoticed for 25 years.
I agree, the title is a bit of a troll. The actual source material has a low opinion of all politicians:
"With the present state of leadership (and not just in the United States) ..."
Anyway, if you gave Obama a gun he'd probably try to ban it. (Ducks for cover...)
"[...] most people [...] wouldn't be concerned at all."
It's currently the most read story on the BBC site. If you'd asked me this morning, I might have said much the same as you, but I wonder if this might be the start of a shift in opinion.
Unicode has superscript digits. (The one and zero are particularly well supported in everyday fonts.) When the superscript is important to the meaning, rather than the presentation, it is best to use those characters rather than messing about with formatting.
"The people selling food stamps for cash are generally junkies who will forgo eating for their fix. Of course they don't get full value."
That was Tim's point. They valued the liquidity more than the face value of the stamps.
There must surely come a point when everyone who wants to watch web videos is using their only two eyes already and watching at retinal resolution. You can't just extrapolate current trends indefinitely.
My guess is that the developed world is closer to that point than some pundits recognise. If you spend too much time watching cat videos, you don't earn enough to pay the mobile data bills.
Since dwarf in this context is an adjective, the term "dwarf planet" absolutely makes it a planet for any English speaker. One has to assume that the IAU boffins who dreamt up the term were leaving themselves some wiggle room.
Alternatively, until it costs more to settle than to insure against the risk, these things will keep happening.
Of course, no-one would take your premium unless you had an externally audited IT security policy, and what are the chances of that happening, eh?
"But everything you need to obtain loans, credit cards, driving licenses, property and on-line payment services were compromised."
So, logically, all the businesses that currently used that combination of information will have to start asking for a different combination, because that combination is now public domain and only an idiot would want to stand up in court and admit that they dished out a credit card with nothing more than public domain info to identify the holder.
This is the real cost and it is a cost to the rest of society. Not for the first time, we see security as a cost that is largely externalised. On the bright side, it *is* probably about time that companies stopped using SSNs as a key.
"Now we get down to Win Home versions only"
I suggest you re-read the article. It was pretty clear that Pro editions are included in the offer, so that's the vast majority of small business users covered.
Why should I read up on it? What difference would that make to the point that these comments are being made by people who claim to have understood its complexity.
"Considering the extreme complexity of the Regin platform and little chance that it can be duplicated by somebody without having access to its source codes, we conclude the QWERTY malware developers and the Regin developers are the same or working together."
"Extreme complexity"? This from people who have just reversed engineered both of them. Modest, huh?
OTOH, it is to be hoped that their claim is correct. Part of GCHQ's job is to develop stuff like this so one would hope that they were investing at least some of their budget in such things and getting usable products out of it.
"they should just release some open source platform that works with all of it products and leave the rest to the developer community. Java-ize it."
Without wishing to dispute the possible merits of open-sourcing some platform, I don't think you are wise to describe that as "Java-izing". There's been this little court case recently about just how open Java actually is.
I don't suppose this will have any effect, but can I just mention that "hologram" and "holographic" already have long-established meanings in the field of imagery and display and (here's the rub) ONE MORE FUCKING DIMENSION THAN YOUR HEAD-UP DISPLAY.
The innumerate tosspots in Microsoft's marketing department may not care about this small detail, but I do. So, Microsoft, when you produce a working 3D display technology, you can call it holographic. Until, then, I suggest you stick to the established meanings of words.
If you don't, we may decide to start calling your displays "wanky". Yes, I know the word "wank" already has an established meaning which doesn't accurately describe your new display technology, and our choice naturally leads on to an even more unfortunate nomenclature for the applications that use it, but it's OK to appropriate existing words because language evolves, right?
"Examples of data we may collect include [...] phone call and SMS data; [...] voice, text and writing input; [...]"
I really can't see *that* surviving in the EULA of the final release. How would Microsoft ever hope to sell a single copy into the business market with a threat to record pretty much everything you do on the device?
OTOH, I'm not concerned. Participation in the beta program is optional and I will read the EULA for the final release. (Microsoft ought to be a little concerned that the population of their beta program might be heavily skewed towards those who don't care about privacy (or, equivalently, towards those who aren't using the product realistically or with an honest ID). If MS are using beta program stats to guide design decisions for privacy-related features, they'll be getting the wrong answers.)
"here's not a chance in hell that I'm going to touch another MS OS at least until it's second or third SP."
This *is* Windows 8 Service Pack 4-ish. In fact, if you can see your way past (or disable) Metro then it is Windows 7 Service Pack 6 or Windows Vista Service Pack 9. Under the hood, MS have done sweet FA for the best part of a decade, except slowly scrub out the warts in Vista that weren't intended.
Relax. We're a rich country and 6bn probably wouldn't even pay the consultancy fee for the next round of NHS reforms.
Oh, hang on...
If someone downvotes without explaining why, it is probably futile for you to try to guess what they are thinking. These forums have plenty of examples of people downvoting purely factual statements, so it is unclear whether they were thinking anything at all.
"Who spends as much on securing their products as MS? "
Probably no-one, but a fair proportion of that cost results from the fact that it is always an afterthought.
Security *is* an inherent part of most OSes, even Windows. The problem with Windows is that every time someone comes along with an existing app that depended on a small hole in the design, Microsoft reason that *their* customer is the end-user, who buys a Windows upgrade and expects everything to carry on working. Therefore, every version of Windows must be backwards compatible with every security hole ever used (even accidentally) and a second layer of attempted security has to be poured on top.
Contrast this with the Linux approach which consists of Linus bawling out the "f*cking cretin" who made the "buggy pile of shite" and then issuing a new kernel that plugs the hole.
Lastly, for extra points, compare and contrast the market share of the two approaches. Then explain to me why it is worth caring about security in the current business environment. :(
Since Win8, the kernel has required CPU features that didn't exist when XP came out and which weren't universally available until the middle of the last decade. I imagine that offering a free upgrade to a load of consumers with XP-era hardware would have been a support nightmare. Yes, you would rig the upgrade process to check before changing anything, but you'd have to tell the ineligible users that they weren't in fact eligible, contrary to what they'd read in your adverts. Good luck with trying to explain instruction set extensions to Joe Public.
Also, they probably figure that anyone still using XP after last years doom-mongering is unlikely to have done so purely on grounds of price, and Win10 won't actually run all those IE6 intranet apps.
I doubt it. The cost of upgrading an old PC has been in three digits for the last version or two. Lowering it to zero will make a big difference to how many people bother. The cost of buying that same version on a new device is about a tenth of that and is in any case hidden in the cost of the device.
We'll know soon enough when we see the EULA for the upgrade. (At that point, we'll also discover whether all forms of Win7 and Win8 licence are equally eligible for the "service pack".) However, my guess (hope?) is that even Microsoft aren't so clueless as to opt for your "pay after one year" model, not least because it might turn out to be unenforceable in those jurisdictions where EULAs have been deemed "not as enforceable as a real contract".
Since Win8.1 is just a lean version of Win7 once you've put a decent shell on, I reckon this may be how MS intend to get around the end-of-life issues around Win7. (It is clearly easier that adding SHA-1 support to the Win7 kernel.)
It also raises the interesting question of how long software developers will continue to support Win7. In the past, the answer would be "as long as we have paying customers" and this tends to be a block on using features that were only introduced in later versions. However, that logic has never applied to (free) service packs. (Plenty of vendors will expect you to have installed all applicable updates.) Maybe Microsoft are trying to convert their 7+8+8.1 market shared into a 10 monoculture, so that they can push the platform's new features.
There's a fairly well defined point at which the solar wind ceases to be supersonic. I think that's the official edge. Outside of that, you can argue that you've left the region of space where the Sun dominates the physical environment.
I doubt that an employment tribunal would reckon you had reached the required standard of proof there. "#scary!" is a comment and therefore non-executable. It proves nothing except that the author has a different sense of humour from you.
Legend has it there was once a comment in the UNIX kernel that said "You are not expected to understand this.". See http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/odd.html for an explanation by one of the authors. Would you sack him?
"Research revealed I needed: [...] rm -rf /tmp/.??*"
Thanks. I'll bear it in mind.
However, is there a sane use-case for the rm command accepting ".."? (For that matter, accepting any path that is either the current working directory or one of its parents would seem to me to be overwhelmingly likely to be a pilot error rather than a really clever piece of scripting.)
Even better would be a system whereby an MP's vote in the legislature was weighted according to the number of people who voted for them relative to the total turnout. Voting for none of the above would then weaken whoever won. Not turning up, however, would achieve nothing.
Weighting MP's vote would of course require rather more hi-tech than the UK Parliament uses in votes, but most other legislatures seem to have electronic tallying these days.
" the little-debated Defence Trade Control Act (DCTA) "
Was it so little debated that no-one noticed the acronym was wrong way round?
"I haven't used Windows in years: have Microsoft fixed the laughably slow file copying yet?"
Yes, but they haven't fixed the bug whereby the two pane of Explorer (folder tree on the left, folder contents on the right) can be pointing at (ie, have selected) a different folder. On the other hand, they do claim to have UI tested every version of Windows in the intervening period with millions of real end-users, so maybe it's just me who thinks that is bonkers.