¡Ahora puedo postear en mi idioma natal! jajajaja ¿Qué pasó El Reg? ¿Aprovechando el manejo de la lengua española después de haber pasado meses en España por el proyecto PARIS? ¡Saludos desde México!
3123 posts • joined 12 Oct 2007
¡Ahora puedo postear en mi idioma natal! jajajaja ¿Qué pasó El Reg? ¿Aprovechando el manejo de la lengua española después de haber pasado meses en España por el proyecto PARIS? ¡Saludos desde México!
The pro-censorship dudes behind SOPA also used China as a shining example when they were pushing their draconian bill as well. It's a disturbing trend all right, but it's there.
The humor seems to be lost on people that don't know (or refuse to believe) Kissinger was a war criminal. He's got a lot of blood on his hands.
2007? a 7 year old machine? So you'd expect a machine bought in 2000 to run the Vista in 2007 or a machine bought in 1993 to run Windows 2000 in 2000 or a machine bought in 1986 to run Windows 3.11 in 1993 or a…
Or a 1986 Mac Plus to run System 7.5.5 (released in September 1996). And that's even after Apple had transitioned the Macintosh platform from Motorola's 680x0 to PowerPC. Sorry, but Apple (used to) have a pretty good record supporting older hardware.
The point's moot on 2007 hardware anyway. The real reason for those Macs being unable to run ML and Mavericks is that 10.8 and newer are now 64-bit only. Apple jumped ship to Intel too early, they should've probably waited 'till the 64-bit processors came out. PPC was 64-bit already after all. They'd probably have all users on Mountain Lion as a minimum if they hadn't killed Rosetta on Lion and newer.
I have been using a Mac since the 1980's and have never had a virus, been hacked or lost data and I have never spent a single cent on anti-virus software.
Had you said "early 2000's" it would have been believable. I was a Mac user during the early Mac+ days, up until sometime around 1998. I came back to Mac sometime around 2012 as most of my work is now based on UNIX and Linux, thus no real need for Windows (and gah! Win8! yuk!). But there's no way you're going to hear me say Mac has never had a virus. Frickin' Symantec Antivirus was born on the Macintosh ecosystem. And yes, we did get hit by a couple of virii, in fact we got to lose a couple of HDDs thanks to them. MacOS Classic had quite a bunch of virii roaming about, it was OSX that started the virus-free claim.
I will agree that it is at least more secure than Windows, but most UNIX/POSIX based OS can claim that feat.
3. It was only just reported Friday and was fixed Tuesday - not sure how that is such a long time.
They fixed it on Friday for iOS, but didn't roll out the OSX fix 'till Tuesday. That's really long given that the fix is in a library, you should be able to simply recompile the affected apps with the new library and release that. Good thing I still am on Mountain Lion...
Wonder why it took so long to put up this fix. I'd just recompile the afflicted apps and upload that as the fix, instead of waiting to add some other fix to the release batch. Especially when SSL is the thing broken.
Mostly the reason for many people believing that Fukushima is a grave Chernobyl-style eternal danger and government coverups may be because many of them are now gullible in believing the zillion urban legends out there. I've been finding out that more and more people KNOW that margarine is plastic and was conceived as a turkey fattening paste (it's not), they KNOW that McDonald's has mutant cows for beef, they KNOW that Velociraptors went into space and are spying on us from deep space… the list goes on and on. When the word "nuclear" is mentioned, everyone thinks green glowing stuff, Chernobyl and atomic bombs. Greenpeace even goes "full retard" with this ignorance and has been trying to stop ITER … which is a fusion reactor, not fission and thus impervious to fission reactor woes. Yet they treat them the same as fission and atomic bombs. Most people THINK they know how "nuclear" works, but most don't. And instead of hearing actual scientists, they listen to any quack who says stuff that sounds good, or doom-mongering. Maybe that's why miracle quack products still sell? People just believe anything shoved into their faces?
hm… NekoCorp does sound like the kind of company name a Bond villain would have. Why haven't I thought about this earlier?
Mt. Gox was mostly a BTC payment processor and exchange between BTC and "fiat" currency (I put "fiat" because BTC itself is fiat as well). While you could leave money there (both BTC and USD) it was mostly to buy/sell BTCs and not to keep a balance like you do in a bank.
People who put their actual savings in BTC should do so in a wallet, which at least you do have and keep yourself in your PC. (Hopefully you back it up every time you do a transaction!)
Hell, I learned the lesson on not keeping money on intermediate entities years ago, during the Second Life Banking Crash of 2007 and its fallout. Used to have my Linden Dollars deposited at Ginko Financial … until that blew up. We were offered a 1:1 swap into stock for Ginko (Something) Bonds at a then very known stock exchange called World Stock Exchange. Thanks to that, I was able to recover about 33% of the original balance I lost. I said, well, I'll invest by buying stock on the companies listed here.
Then the stock exchange suddenly halted, all withdrawals were "temporarily" suspended. While trading reopened for some months after a 9-month hiatus, withdrawals never were re-enabled… and the whole thing just disappeared sometime around 2009. In fact, the temporary halt page is still there, and it looks a lot like Mt. Gox's announcement, doesn't it? So while I did use Mt. Gox, and I did have a meager balance there (something like 0.000007 BTC and 0.0007 USD) I never kept large amounts of money there for more time than necessary. And it seems I was right!
It usually depends on how secure do you want your stuff. People or organizations that are really, really security-oriented or need to have something hard to break should get an HSM (Hardware Security Module) and use that to encrypt everything. Why? Because an HSM is FIPS 140-2 certified, tamperproof, and will keep the crypto keys in such a way they can't be extracted out of said HSM.
Of course, even then if security isn't hardened around the servers that have direct HSM access you can still end up getting everything compromised (mostly if you don't enforce Level 3 compliance, anyone can use said HSM and thus decrypt stuff without getting asked for password/token validation). But well, it can be done.
Nokia is being borged by MS, at least the smartphone part. Where is this Nokia X coming from? The part of Nokia that isn't getting borged?
Nice. Putting Elop the Nokia Butcher on the Xbox division? That's got to be real good! Especially as he wanted that division dead. Go Elop, kill it!
Except that they don't realise that real currency systems and banks are generally secure and safe.
Banks are safe, indeed. As long as they don't do stupid things like sub-prime loans or any kind of high-risk loan with most of their money, they'll remain safe. I should know as my line of work has mostly been in the financial sector, including banks.
Any currency system, however, is as stable as its backer. My country's currency (MXN) has ups and downs, so most people would rather have their life savings in something that doesn't have sudden drops every now and then. Bitcoin itself has been very volatile and as such is also not the currency I'd use for my life savings … though I do wish I had kept my 0.96 BTC I had last year (of course, NOT in Mt. Gox).
Interestingly, Mt. Gox ceased to be relevant to me when they were cut off by OKPAY. That was my only easy route in and out of that. Maybe it was the universe warning me to get out of there?
Apple should simply say "this law passes, I'm shutting down that glass factory". Kick 'em in the nuts to get stupid laws turned down.
It should be pretty much obvious NOT to use MS-anything in stuff that requires an actual RTOS. QNX has been the standard in that area, long before Blackberry bought them up. Serves Ford right for using the wrong tech, at least they're fixing their mistake.
To be honest, the US already had accumulated a lot of bitterness during the Cold War, so much that a good chunk of their current problems are caused by their past evils.
- Iran? They CAUSED it, along with the UK, with Operation AJAX. So much that said operation is no longer considered a good thing as it basically triggered a series of events that caused the Islamic Revolution and turned Iran into the US-hating, religious-zealot-run country it is today.
- Most of Latin America suffered bloody tyrants and South America in particular had at one time a CIA backed dictatorship in most of its countries. Ever wonder how Chavez got to be President in Venezuela? That's why. Having a US hating prez is the new cool in most of South America.
- The Iraq WMD lie basically killed whatever goodwill was left in the remaining part of the world that didn't have a grudge against the US. Dubya's Administration foreign policy brought hatred to the US and the whole NSA/PRISM thing was just the finishing touch to all that.
It is indeed sad to see this happen, given that the US at one point was the shining beacon of freedom during the 19th Century. Today? Not so much.
The point is that NSA (and pretty much any other agency) can simply send a secret FISA warrant and seize all the data by themselves. They don't need to hack stuff within their borders, they already have the omnipresent power there. That's why lavabit shut down.
Same thing applies to CBP, they can simply dump all your HDD's contents for later "research" if they want to at customs. This is why I had to delete sensitive client data before traveling to the US; I'd be involuntarily breaking NDAs just by entering the US. Extra points as the CBP power was given by a judge during a pedophile case, so it gets the added "for the children" mantra used instead of going after "terrists".
hehehe. My High School was the HS for a college here, which is pretty common over here (most High Schools are either linked to a university's "system" or are wholly part/owned by one) but in my HS case, we actually were in the university campus… so we shared everything with the actual college dudes. So one of the students had done some work for some company which had a Red Hat Linux 5 server somewhere. Naturally, he compiled a CircleMUD variant and put it up for everyone to use. So we used the university workstations to play on a MUD secretly running at a server. hehe. The computer lab admin for the lab where all the RS/6000s were (the ones we used for MUDding) actually allowed us to do this as long as we didn't do it when real work was needed to be done.
After a year and a half of this, someone got wise on the company and killed the MUD. A sad day that was...
ISP's shouldn't use proxies for their service. Not. At. All. It just serves for them to engage in shady content favoritism practices or snooping. It's one of the things that ISPs should never do unless they have a really good reason to do so (say, being a satellite ISP and even then, the proxy would live within your premises.) The other horrible thing they shouldn't do is CGNAT.
Both practices, however, are done by the Cable ISPs here in Mexico, the main reason why I don't ever use them.
You're assuming that the backend connection for the reverse proxy isn't SSL. While I'll admit that the places with reverse proxies I've worked at have both the reverse proxy and the backend in the same site, I do know that everything is covered by SSL. Hell, a certain bank that shall not be named has SSL from Internet to Reverse Proxy, RP to yet-another-RP, to Application Server, to MQ, to Mainframe.
Usage of reverse proxies doesn't automatically mean "cleartext on the backend".
Looks like MtGox is starting to sink. Truly sink.
Fortunately there are still other exchanges, but what the hell?
Those are found in the same place where the Reptilian Thetans have their Space Hitler base, launched by the Iluminati and Raptor Jesus during the establishment of the New World Order. The Khazar are really inhabitants from Nibiru and are just waiting the deep space signal from Mothra to destroy OUR WORLD!!!! OMGWTFBBQ!!!
I'll give you Aledbaran. On the other hand, Alpha Centauri, Arcturus, Bootes, Betelgeuse, Antares, Canis Major, Sirius, Ursa Major and Minor, Rigel, Upsilon Andromedae, and Zeta Orionis are Greek or Latin. And Polaris too.
Fun! Zeta Orionis is called Alnitak, and Betelgeuse is actually a corrupted translation from Arabic as well. The 'proper' Greek name is Alpha Orionis. Even Antares was known by the Persians, so it seems to be more of a case of both camps observing stars. Though it is worthy of noting that they are Greek names, which reinforces the Middle Ages "brute" belief that science just stagnated during those centuries.
We have SANs for two things: sharing resources and reliability. The resource sharing is basically to be able to up total storage space and just allocate it to the zillion servers we have. The reliability is for failover capabilities; if the server crashes, the data can still be accessed from another server without much hassle. The SAN itself might even be made to have HA capabilities. Local storage? If the server goes poof, your data might do so as well.
So Curiosity is basically moonwalking? Or better said as 'Marswalking'?
I do wonder why on earth are they using goto in C. Isn't this a bad sign of someone trying to do stuff the ole BASIC way? That goto is frowned upon most functional/procedural languages?
He's referring to the zillion dev "howto" manuals and "guru" programmer recommendations when dealing with SSL certs. A lot of them end up telling the dev to "disable SSL validation" or doing something similarly dumb like that. Even some of the howto's that shouldn't give this advice (those concerning security stuff like Identity Management and Access Mgt suites) are still giving advice on how to disable SSL validation or how to trick the tool into accepting self-signed certs.
You know someone's going to build an actual T-1000 out of this, if only for the lulz. Then it'll become self-aware...
The problem with a lot of these things is that they run on System/390 (which we now know as z/OS) and use stuff that only those familiar with S390 know: CICS, TSO, ISPF, COBOL, RACF, OMVS … if you know what any of those things are, you're probably better qualified than most people in IT these days. Note that I said "you know what it means", not "know how to do stuff with that".
It also doesn't help that a lot of stuff from the mainframe's heyday was done in COBOL, which was all the rage back then in business realms up until Dijkstra rightfully slammed it and fell out of favor. (Sadly, nobody was able to do the same to Visual Basic.) Maybe the only thing worse than having to work with VB6 code or COBOL has to be MUMPS, and that language will also live for eons thanks to its usage in the US healthcare system.
Some banks have been migrating their code to better languages like Java, but some of these projects take years or decades, and even then they only get something like "now we got 40% COBOL code in our core systems". Most of them have simply made some kind of "core system" for the lower-level stuff, and simply develop middleware stuff on top of that. Because nobody wants to be the team that broke the bank's code!
Because BBM actually does it right. Instead of giving away and slurping through your phone number, they use a BB PIN that is unrelated to the phone number itself. (It is related to a BB device if the user's using a BlackBerry, but that is less of a concern.) Thus BBM is useless to Facebook as they don't get Grand Theft Data upon buying that stuff.
There's only one commenter stating that smug thing … and it's right-winger troll Ted Treen. Don't worry too much about him, and what you stated has already been stated to him as well. :)
Search Google for OTT. First hit.
Missing the point? That's what he said, that the only thing he found is "Over The Top" and it isn't how any of us would describe IM apps on smartphones.
There goes the neighborhood. There's a good chance WhatsApp will be either shuttered or forcibly migrated to use FaceBook credentials in the near future. And that will be the moment some other I'm solution will take over. Maybe BBM? At least that one can shield you from giving away your phone number, which is required by WhatsApp.
I've been (un)pleasantly surprised by the daft security concerning user/password registries. Years ago, while I was still at college, I had mostly figured out that DB-stored user/password combos were insecure, even if a one-way hash was used, but especially if MD5 or crypt was used. Having on-server encryption or code-hidden keys to encrypt the stuff was also useless as someone 0wning the box would also get the keys. I found better theft-dampening solutions by having LDAP as a user registry. This is because that LDAP could reside somewhere else (read: not the web server that is going to be eventually owned) and by smart ACL crafting, the hashes wouldn't be available for someone to dump off. Adding to this having the hashes themselves as SSHA, you should have a fairly hard to dump-to-crack-later user registry on your hands.
Come on, even Apache supports LDAP authentication. Why haven't all these sites moved to this?
Wonder if someone's password ended up being that?
Ah, the right-winger troll is back at it…
No my dear, while BTC has fallen from the $1000 mark, they're still doing $612-650 on other exchanges. MtGox seems to be no longer the one and only BTC exchange, and its woes are probably bigger since they started complying with FinCEN's rules (they're actually asking for ID and proof of residence these days). Even though I'm not a US Citizen, I still got bit when OKPAY stopped serving 'em. Had I bought BTC back then, I'd have profited a lot by now (BTC was at $55, the up/down swings would've landed me a truckload of BTCs and USDs by now).
I've probably erred too far on caution on these thingies. Of course I wouldn't send my life savings on BTC, but I would send a stash of my non-critical savings there as it seems it gets better returns than my current bank does (3% per year! meh….) While I am skeptic on BTC, I don't dismiss them as "tulip mania" or even "ponzi scheme" as most detractors do. The BTCs will still hold value even if the exchanges go poof as long as someone's willing to use them as currency or trade 'em for hard cash. The same applies to other currencies like USD, GBP, EUR and such, most of our modern currencies value isn't set but is actually given by us ("us" being the markets, reserves, GNP, whatever.) That's why it's called "fiat currency"… and BTC is also a fiat currency, even though the most fervent BTC followers insist in this not being the case.
they've dragged the desktop GUI back to Win 95 levels of sophistication.
I'd say you went too far into yesterday's future. The Start Screen is basically a revival of the awful Program Manager UI. It's even been commented by TIFKAM detractors, and they're probably right on the spot. App-centric UI makes sense in mobile devices but it never made sense in PCs. The whole Win95 UI revamp copied System 7's (and earlier) approach where files were the main thing on UI navigation, and it was one of the most liked changes in Windows.
And now they backtracked on that.
As many others have mentioned already, the optional Launchpad app which did attempt something similar to what Metro does (stick a mobile UI on a PC OS) is probably the one app that is either unused or hated by most OSX users. Noticeable by the fact that most OSX users are probably iOS users as well, so it isn't that they don't like that UI at all, they like it as long as it keeps to their mobile devices. This is where MS failed: their TIFKAM interface was loved by WinPhone 7 users when they put that on their new revamped WinPho OS. Then they force-fed it to Windows 8 … which has now turned it from "nice mobile UI" to "that fugly thing on new PCs".
Win8 will keep on being a non-seller 'till they either get rid of Metro/Modern, or turn it into an optional thing returning the Start Menu and letting TIFKAM apps run as a window. Keep the UI on tablets though, that's where it does belong.
There's a good chance they'll actually do it this time. The business sector has held on to Win7 even for their XP phase-out programs.
If MS bothered to ask consumers this would have never happened.
Beta testers did tell MS that it was awful for desktops. Freakin' UI designers told MS the interface sucked donkey balls. The only thing they did was to disable the registry trick that allowed you to bring back the Start Menu and excised the Start Menu code from Win8. The results are obvious; Win8 ain't selling. Even those 200 million W8 licenses aren't a sure thing; there's a good chance those Win8 boxes were purchased but immediately wiped clean and had a fresh install of Win7 in its place. MS did that with Vista, giving "XP downgrade rights" just to fluff up Vista "sales" numbers. It's just doing it again with Win8.
I find it funny that JDX thinks Win8 looks like OSX. Nope, it doesn't. There's no fullscreen tiled interface here, and the only iOS-ish thing would be the Launchpad. And that's optional, not mandatory like the Start Screen.
It could be that Silk Road being busted proves that law enforcement might be able to trace 'em. Also, BTC exchanges falling under regulation by certain entities (FinCEN) means that they might be traced at the exit points of conversion. Volatility may be a reason, but "I might get busted" is probably the main reason behind this.
Heh. I did a project on both nuclear fission and fusion at High School (preparatoria in Spanish) back in 1997. Same thing here, I was fascinated on tokamaks and the NIF thingy, though I was also kind of let down when I saw that break-even was still pretty far down the road. Yet I'm seeing progress in this area, so we'll probably crack it sometime during my lifetime, and hopefully we will.
Given that AOL was for a long time the only ISP in most of the US, it probably is an appropriate comparison. However I doubt it'll have the same ending; AOL's demise was because broadband ate away its market, Comcast and TWC are the broadband in those places. The only way the AOL story would repeat itself is if another broadband ISP were to roll out nationwide and have better service than Comcast/TWC.
I don't know about TWC, but Comcast are the guys who were forging RST packets and tried to get away with it in court. They're EVIL. Hopefully this will fuel the Net Neutrality fire...
A mistake really??? Apple concentrating on short term profit (ie the high end) has made them almost immune from the general slump in PC and Laptop sales.
You're thinking current markets. Back in the 80's, they had the PC market with the Apple II. There's a good chance that guys my age had their first hands-on experience with an Apple II if they lived in the US, there were a lot of 'em in many elementary schools. It even had the first real killer app for personal computers: VisiCalc (the very first spreadsheet program!). The Macintosh was even better as it had a GUI at a time where most computers were mostly text only. See the Texas Instruments one, the C-64 or the Apple II. And only a couple of years later, the Macintosh had killer apps for office productivity, like Aldus PageMaker and yes, even Word and Excel (this is where Office was born!). But Apple had to sell it at an expensive price, and thus the adoption rate was slower.
Hell, they managed to keep the Macintosh platform pretty good all the way to System 7.1, even when Windows came out System 7 was still nice compared with the fugly Win3.1 GUI (Program Manager, anyone?). It was probably 'till Windows 95 that MS reached near-parity with System 7 … and even then they were still behind the line. But PCs were now at least somewhat user friendly and combined price differential and the post-Sculley slump meant that the PC kicked them out of the personal computer market. It was a sad thing to see...
Yeah, AppleTalk was far better than COM: or even LPT: back then. It worked like a boxy Token-Ring-ish LAN as well, though these capabilities weren't really exploitable out of the box until System 7 came out. Printers could be connected to the AppleTalk network though, which was pretty awesome for that time.
I still remember that the first LAN ever at home was AppleTalk-based, so much that my later PC had an LPT to AppleTalk adapter to talk with the rest of the home LAN. Ah, those were the days...
Technically it was still called ARPANet and/or NSFNet back then, though it started to get the 'Internet' moniker sometime around the late 80's or early 90's. The Internet as we know it today was probably "born" sometime around 1992, and the final restrictions on commercial stuff didn't go until 1995. Technically, we can talk of pre-1995 as the "pre-Internet" era as before then, NSFNet (the primary backbone) didn't allow commercial use of the network.
P. Lee - OSX basically did the "GUI for BSD", as NeXTStep and OSX are based off BSD. It's easy to use for those comfortable with BSD, but it is pretty mind boggling for those who are only used to Linux.
Oh, and the person who ended up bringing Jobs back to Apple originally wanted to build their GUI around Solaris. That would've been interesting, had Apple done both the turnaround and done "Apple on Solaris" Sun Microsystems would probably still exist to this day.
System 7 was far better than its contemporary Windows brethren, and that includes Windows 95. While System 7 could bomb (yes, I remember both Sad Macs and 'Sorry, a system error has occurred') Windows 3.x and 95 had a bad habit of doing this at random, and it was far more common back in those days. OS X came out by 2001, but the first really consumer-oriented memory-protected MS OS was Windows XP (as MS had Windows 2000 more of an enterprise OS) so both companies were really on equal footing (NT was more of a business OS).
Nope, process isolation in MacOS vs. OSX isn't what made MS win the war. It was mostly on pricing as PCs went far cheaper than Macs and a couple of blunders by Apple during the post-Sculley years. If stability were the real differentiation between platforms, we'd probably be running Solaris everywhere these days.
I gotta agree on some of the things they tried, and the Newton particularly is one thing that I liked back then. Even the article states what many of us already know: the Newton wasn't killed for being a failure, it was killed because Jobs had to have his sweet revenge against the guy who succeeded him as CEO. He actually pissed off a lot of developers back then, as the Newton ecosystem was slowly but surely evolving.
Proof that Jobs wanted the Newton dead? Right before his return, Newton was going to be spun off as a separate company. This was halted upon Jobs' return. He really wanted the thing dead.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017