Not just that, this also assumes that their e-mail wouldn't end up somewhere in a spamfilter, something I'd consider very likely.
2701 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
Not just that, this also assumes that their e-mail wouldn't end up somewhere in a spamfilter, something I'd consider very likely.
So everyone else is to blame except those who wrote those e-mails, used the public channels for it and were basically caught off guard.
See... if I share false threats or accusations through e-mail and those leak and the audience gets seriously upset by that: who is to blame? Me for outing that shit in the first place or the hacker who exposed me?
Note: these were semi-public e-mail channels. Why do you think the US has such problems with politicians using public services (or semi-public phones) to sent political data (something many democrats easily ignored I might add, it wouldn't be the first time we read about official warnings). You reap what you sow in my opinion.
Also: how does one "affect" an election?
How gullible do you have to be if you let random posts on the Internet affect your decision on who to vote for? That is the one thing I simply cannot comprehend. Sure: I can understand that some people allow for this, each to their own, but how gullible do you have to be... But if you are that gullible then this also leads me to another question: if people really are this gullible that they'd change their mind based on a random post on the Internet then what are the chances that they didn't simply change their mind from going to the bathroom? You know... the "let's shit on the politicians" kind of idea and suddenly do a 180 degrees turn.
If people are such huge flipflops... then why does it have to be the Russians? For all I know it could be a good looking girl or a guy campaigning which then changed their minds.
Say; what about that phone Hillary used to share political data with? Did that got hacked too? Gee, I wonder how that could have happened. If she set the example that "do whatever you like" then.. yah.. sorry, they had their warnings.
"Azure Dev Spaces is one of those technologies that looks great in demonstrations, but can end up being infuriating when introduced to real life."
With all due respect for Microsoft (seriously) I can't help but comment that a lot of their software and services have been following this strategy as you describe it here. And I think it's said that Microsoft still doesn't seem to learn or acknowledge those simple facts.
For example? Simple: PowerShell (vaguely related). At one time they had this awesome idea: force every PowerShell user into using a localized documentation system which would provide people with help in their own language. Sounds great in theory, but what if you don't want localized help and would rather stick with the default English versions? Or what if the help in your native language isn't available? Well: then you're out of luck (but you can "fix" it with a bit of hacking).
Microsoft still needs to pay much more attention to the things which the customers need and want I think.
Well, I knew it was going to happen eventually, which is why I'm still happily using Office 2010, including a fully working desktop version of OneNote where I can choose to share some notebooks within the cloud (and accessible from my phone). But most of my stuff is stored locally, with an automated backup on my local server.
I peeked at a more modern version once but I really don't get the feeling that I'm missing out. My interface doesn't look flat and boring, I'm not fully tied into the cloud and most importantly: "It just works".
"What are the goals here: subscriptions?"
An easier way of generating revenue would be my guess.
You see quite a few software companies suddenly also providing subscription models, and it makes (some) sense from a business perspective. The only problem is that customers are usually not really getting their moneys worth.
Odd article. So instead of educating the people who handle all this information in order to ensure that they know that this should be properly handled the preference is to automate the whole thing?
Sounds nice in theory but what's going to happen if people then start blindly trusting the system? Maybe right up to a point where it becomes obvious that something isn't right but because the system never warned them they continue with whatever it is they're doing anyway.
A silly mistake, but showcase of a much more darker and intrusive problem: the growing dependency on algorithms. And that doesn't bode well for us. Because once "the system" has made up its mind, good luck trying to convince it otherwise. Especially when you have to deal with mindless drones such as public servants.
You can see examples of these all around us. If you look close enough. A prisoner in the US had really come around and followed a role model. He applied for parole but was denied because he was deemed to be a danger for society. Eventually he got a lawyer to appeal, it came before a judge and the system turned out to be wrong. He got his parole. And the reason for this initial denial? His crimes fit the profile and so did his behavior so he was denied. Even though he was still an model prisoner.
A small, maybe meaningless looking, example but it does showcase a growing, much bigger, issue.
I've said it many times: this is the most dumbest thing they've done in a while. I'm still visiting tons of websites which don't use HTTPS and where there's totally no need at all.
And I'm pretty sure that I know what'll happen next:
"How do I get rid of all those annoying warnings?"
"I know! start your Chrome with -ignore-certificate-errors, that should do it"
And I'm sure many will follow up. The only problem of course is that this disables every warning. I'm aware of quite a few people already frequently using this because they want to access a website with an expired certificate, and Chrome doesn't let them. Even though there's absolutely no risk; expired or not, the certificate will still be used for encryption. There is no security problem, only a monetary problem. But yeah, that's what they're counting on!
Idiocy like this will only make things less secure because people will start ignoring warnings much more often.
Some people keep yapping about the gender gap but every article always starts with the disclaimer that this doesn't focus on men and women performing the same job. Obviously because in that case men and women should earn the same, governed by law.
So I keep wondering: what is the problem that men and women earn different salaries when they perform different jobs? Because that is the only underlying reason for this so called "gap".
See, my problem with all this is that the drive behind it is supposedly about equality. So why is it never a problem when, according to these studies of course, women suddenly earn more than men? When that happens there's nothing wrong, yet isn't that simply a display of hypocrisy? Equality should be absolute: it should cover both ends of the spectrum and not simply favor only one end of it.
... that is, if you truly pursue equality of course. And I have some serious doubts about that part.
No, not in the sense that Europe dictates all this of course. That's nonsense.
But there is a huge problem, and the same happened with the cookie law: not everyone fully understands what they are supposed to do and many will therefor take the safest route out. Sometimes even if this turns into totally ridiculous situations where everyone could see that the whole thing isn't related.
Example? Right now you're pretty much greeted with a warning about cookies for each and every website you visit. Even if all they do is use those cookies to run a forum. Guess what? The cookie law provides in that and you do not have to warn your users about those. It's only about the inter-site tracking cookies which can actually follow users in such a way where another site can obtain useful information from them. So: real data sharing.
But if your website sets a cookie "ls=xx" which, for example, means "login session: x, succeeded. x, needs to sustain" then no one would be the wiser so you wouldn't have to ask for permission.
However, and fully understandable, most don't take chances and therefor ask for the use for cookies either way. It's also easy because most fora and CMS software supports this out of the box.
I foresee the same thing with GDPR. Companies who are misinformed and who will end up doing completely weird stuff because they'll refuse to handle some personal data and blame (either correctly or not) the GDPR. You can already see some of this happening where US websites now block people from Europe so that they don't have to deal with any of this. No EU visitors, no risk of GDRP violations.
"I call BS, there's not a developer alive who doesn't think he can do a sysadmin's job better."
In my opinion that would depend more on the sysadmin than the developer(s). Most developers I came across with started complaining when they couldn't do their job properly. And why wouldn't they complain because in many cases they're the actual heart of the organization which keeps the whole thing running (especially if you're selling software products).
I've worked on both sides of the spectrum (though I'm not a professional developer, as in: never took on a full time job as developer) and in my opinion it's mostly certain sysadmins who come over as sort of arrogant because they know how to keep the company safe. And if you then keep in mind that "keeping safe" usually boils down to "limiting users" you got yourself a dilemma.
Of course in many cases those sysadmins weren't really arrogant at all, but the way they expressed themselves... ye gods. And there lies your problem in the making because action = reaction.
Now I'm stuck with that song in my head all day! :P
At least it's now for a good cause, that's a pro...
o/~ Never gonna git you up, never gonna push you down, never gonna clone around and fork you o/~
"EURid claims that the forced deletion of existing domains is needed in order to protect users against what are called "homograph attacks" where domain names are registered with non-Latin scripts to make them look like all-Latin domains e.g. a Cyrillic "a" is used in place of a Latin "a" to make people think they are on the website of, say, "apple.com.""
What is the amount of EU domains which actually try doing this? And also: how does that amount compare to the full extend of EU domains?
It's a very typical way in which modern politicians react: don't hold the offenders accountable for their own actions. Nah, just try to forbid the whole thing and be sure to demand heavy fines if people don't comply. Whatever happened to the democratic notion of innocence until proven guilty?
I see a very dangerous trend happening because the only reason a ruling like this gets pushed is because it's easier on the politicians, not because it's the best they can do. And worse: many innocent individuals get to suffer from this because... reasons.
Another issue is that there's no need anymore. Modern browsers have already adapted so that they'll display those characters for what they are, you won't see "apple" anymore. That was pretty much a unanimous decision, so once again the politicians are acting after the facts.
And is it just me or is it plain out arrogant (and bizarre) not allowing people outside of the EU to register and host a .eu domain? I mean.. I live in Holland and I can easily get a .de domain, or a .jp domain and even a .us domain if I want to. Where's the problem with that?
"Call me cynical, but there is no way this was not visible at the point when the IPO was done."
Sure it is. All it takes is one data analyst to hit 'delete' on his precious BPMN chart and the enterprise will never be the wiser.
Now, I'm somewhat joking here but on the other hand I'm also not. I've had a few experiences as "junior data analyst" where I was honestly astonished at the seemingly sheer display of ignorance of upper management regarding their own company. Sure; they hired beancounters for a reason, I'm well aware, but surely you don't need a data analyst to tell you what is going on in your own company?
With that experience in mind (even though it could be flawed one of course) I don't think it's fully impossible for higher staff not to know.
Way to go!
In all fairness though: I do agree that it is getting harder and harder to perform for businesses these days. At least that's my perception of it.
On one hand you get new workers who feel they know everything because they studied and if you tell them that they actually know jack shit you're getting borderline close to facing a trial for harassment because how dare you.
Then at the other end of the spectrum we often have governments who try to protect the rights of the employee's and sometimes that can outweigh that of an employer. This is definitely an issue in Europe where firing someone can actually backfire on you. Even if you can well establish that the individual is hurting your business.
That fluke mentioned here would definitely be reason for dismissal for me, but I guess that's not how it works anymore.
Where you're actually expected to know how to set up the product you're working with and even worse: you also need to know how this product works. Because if you go in without any relevant knowledge then you can actually make horrid mistakes which could compromise security.
But how is this Jolokia's or Java's fault? I mean, anyone who knows their basics about Java management will know about MBeans. So if you're then working with something relying on MBeans, yeah... is it really that hard to add one and one up?
In my opinion this is telling us more about the shallow environment which is generally uphold within IT rather than this software product. Because like I said... how dare they expect that people actually learn their trades..
Reminds me of that "skilled" admin team who apparently couldn't understand the difference between a public and private AWS bucket and as such dumped a majority of their private keys onto the Net. For all to see and download. And of course later on blaming AWS because...
"but any Americans who think that he is a traitor to the US are objectively morons. You can't commit treason against a country of which you have never been a citizen."
Not only that but what about the people involved in all the (often) illegal and usually questionable practices which got exposed?
That's the main part I never understood: if they had followed protocol, if they had stuck with the rules then they wouldn't have been exposed. And the worst part is that most of those are also getting away with all this. Because... reasons and the greater good I guess?
There's a reason why the saying "Don't shoot the messenger" exists. Not trying to imply that this also applies here of course, because messengers usually only deliver messages and don't rape or harass women.
The EU causes more collateral damage than they probably anticipated. I'm actually hoping that this trend continues: be GDRP compliant and just lock out EU users, simple as that. Then you can continue with your business, no questions asked.
This reminds me of that brilliant cookie law which the EU just had to push through. And as a result nothing has changed. The only change is that they'll now nicely ask you up front: "Do you accept this cookie?", and if the answer is no you're blocked from the site. SO... no matter what kind of cookie: if you want to use the site you'll have to click yes. And continue clicking yes again and again and again and again for every website. Another one of those awesome EU ideas!
Now, don't get me wrong here. The motivation behind GDRP is a good one, securing user data. But I also think that, as usual within politics, they're not thinking things through.
I mean... if you ask a webmaster to remove your data and they say "Ok, done", without actually doing anything. Then what? Would you be the wiser? I doubt it. And even if you can proof this, then what? Call the cops? If you're dealing with a US company and then call the cops on them for an EU law infraction then I'm not too sure that they'll bother to help you. Why should they?
In the end this will be one of those brilliant ideas which will cause more harm than profit. Like the DCMA takedown requests: that also began as a good idea until people started abusing it left and right because... the consequences for false reports are practically zip as far as I know.
I fear that this won't be any different. As such: just block the EU and be done with it, easy :)
(for the record: I am from Europe myself, but not quite a fan of this GDRP intrusion).
We're forced to delete user data. Ok, got it.
But what about the data retention law, from that very same EU? Never heard of that? Easy: it basically forces companies to store and archive communications passing through their servers (such as e-mails) for up to 3 years. Wouldn't you say that this somehow contradicts with the GDRP? I mean, can it get any more personal than e-mails or forum messages?
And just so we're clear: the intent of the data retention law is that communications must be stored in such a way that the information can be used to fully trace the users origin. Which is exactly the opposite of GDRP which demands that data needs to be anonymized.
So what is it? You can't have it both ways, yet that's exactly what they're trying to do.
At least the money got spent on things which really mattered. For example, I can't help but think that this meeting got covered by the last bits of their financial assets, time is money afterall, so now the company has probably legitimately ran out of cash. And all those caterers need to get paid too you know; a business meeting without a business lunch is of course not a good meeting so their hands were obviously tied there.
Sometimes you wonder how some people still sleep at night. I mean, taking money from fans without delivering anything worth mentioning, sure way to up your reputation as being reliable. At least the underpants business strategy (UBS) paid off once again, and it's difficult to understand business model is pretty on-par with todays standards:
That's one heck of an UBS if I ever saw one. What an admirable effort, such hard work...
"As schemes have become more complex its often the case that you need a multi-skilled team - like it or not."
Or better engineers.
People like Einstein and Hawkings came up with the most brilliant of theories and statements and they mostly did all of that on their own.
Now, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. Heck, this even follows the Unix philosophy: perform a small task and do that to the best of your abilities. And this approach works excellent. But the reason why I still comment is because this "multi skilled" approach is often taken into ridiculous directions these days.
More than often the skill set isn't the most important anymore, it's how you present it. Who cares if one person shows you plain out facts. When he does so in a boring way then he's most likely to get surpassed by someone else who is better at presenting himself. Just too bad that he got all of his facts mixed up...
Oh wow, the cops are fined 80,000 pounds, as if this will actually affect them...
I mean, basically the government is now handing out a fine to an institution which got paid with... government money (aka: the taxpayers money!) in the first place. Could someone please explain to me how exactly this is going to have an effect?
Even if this would go out of a police budget then the effect is obvious: the police won't be able to perform their full duties due to lack of resources. Ergo: the population (not the police force!) would suffer thanks to the moronic actions of one idiot who couldn't even be bothered to think about what he was going to do. An idiot which is obviously still working for the force, because those are the kinds the public servant system highly values: people who will carry out orders without questioning and too much thinking.
And if this doesn't come out of the budget... how is this going to help those victims?
All I'm seeing is one government agency demanding money from another, while that money was coughed up by the population in the first place through taxes. Those numbers sound real intimidating (wow, 80,000!), but that quickly ends if you actually stop to think about what is happening here.
Where does the money go to? The victims as some form of compensation? Oh, I don't think so. It goes straight into the government and after a few months when the heat has passed the force can file in a request for extra financial support and they'll obviously get it.
When being asked about the extra spending it's probably going to be: "We have to, because if we don't then the population are the ones to suffer here". Yah, right, but if you cared so much for the population then why imply the fine in the first place and why didn't you, for example, hold the idiot who did this accountable for his own actions?
Why not sent that officer on a 2 month forced leave without pay for example? That would actually set an example that if you mess up with the most vulnerable kinds of victims then you will have to pay for the consequences.
But nah, too much theory. Let's move 80,000 pounds around because that really sounds cool and then it's back to business as usual. And no one will have learned one single bit.
Embrace, extend and then delete, delete, delete!
Why don't we have a Cyberman or Dalek icon? :P
... a change merely because of the change?
I still prefer the classic "if it isn't broke, don't fix it!" motto myself. Just for the record: I actually enjoy the Ribbon Interface. But then again I also didn't upgrade Office after version 2010 :)
First it were non-existing weapons of mass destruction, and now it's "malicious software". Anything to blame it on the Russians. After all, they are the aggressive dominating power here. Just look at them being right at the European border!
... wait. Wasn't that border in East Germany several years back, with an historic Berlin wall separating the city? And isn't that border now almost located in the Ukraine? Almost literally at the Russian border itself?
Whatever happened to that treaty which got signed after World War II which prevented both the USSR and the EU from expanding their borders? So, like, who's the aggressor here? I have my own ideas about that.
Remember: warfare in this modern age isn't only playing out on a battlefield. Financial based warfare is a thing too these days. And the best part is that it's almost invisible for the common population.
What a world we live in <sigh>
"maybe I should sue google because someone may mistake someone with a different skin colour in a different country"
And what about the websites which actually published all that material?
That's the part I don't get: they want to sue Google over this,but all Google does is direct you to sites which actually published the material. So, uhm, don't shoot the messenger?
NASA owns the moon then? Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
When I bought my Windows 7 professional version it was said to be supported until 2020. So.. that also didn't happen anymore I guess? :)
I've read the blog post and it even started with "in my opinion...." yet OSS still tried to bully this guy into taking it down. They deserve everything coming to them in my opinion.
I also hope this whole case will backfire making more companies and people alike pull out of this mess called grsecurity. No, I'm not bashing. It's just logical reasoning: one of the pillar stones in computer and online security is transparency; sharing information. When a backdoor or vulnerability is found it's usually in the best people's interests to share that information so that others can prepare themselves for it.
So here we have a security company who tried to take down a blog post where someone merely shared their personal opinion. Making me wonder: what would happen if somewhat decided to share something they perceived to be facts about backdoors within the grsecurity project?
Do you really think that this company would allow for that to happen? If this is how they treat an opinionated blogger, then I think they'll treat a mid cart security source which posts controversial material about their project even worse.
And when a security firm tries to shut someone up I always have to wonder: how many more people did they try to hassle and what for?
Would you really put your trust into a dominating dictatorial bunch like that? I sure wouldn't!
"The thing is, one way or another, stuff has to be paid for. Since this generation has decided not to pay for anything, least of all for factual information investigated by salaried journalists, advertising and sponsorship is all we have left."
Interesting theory but history has showed us something else.
In the beginning news companies decided to put parts of the paper online in order to lure people into reading it. The website itself was the advertisement and the goal was to get people to subscribe to the paper version. Then people decided that the limited online version was good enough for them because free yet limited news is cheaper than paid for full news.
But it was not "this generation that decided not to pay", it were the companies who decided to give away some of their stuff for free in hopes of luring people.
My personal issue with IPv6 is that it seeks to replace instead of co-exist and I believe that this is what makes the whole thing so hard. Because even if you use IPv6 you're still often depending on IPv4.
My ISP for example supports IPv6, I even have a public IPv6 address. Unfortunately the router only provides this on the outside, on the inside only IPv4 is provided. I once tried to set up the DHCPv6 server but to little avail. And that brings me back to my dilemma: all my internal stuff uses IPv4 so the moment I try to connect to the Internet the first thing it does is contacting an IPv4 gateway. So where's the benefit here?
But I really think that they shouldn't have played cry wolf for so many times. Several times did they share doom scenarios about IPv4 running out and the Internet coming to a grinding halt UNLESS we would embrace the savior that is IPv6. The Internet mostly ignored that and the grinding halt never happened. It doesn't matter if engineers worked hard to prevent that from happening, what matters here is public perception: a doom scenario was predicted, and it never happened.
Not once, not twice but at least four times of the past years. And that's a really sure way to lose credibility. Good luck trying to convince upper management that IPv6 is important: "But haven't we heard those stories all the time now? So why should we invest when everything works just fine?".
Well said. I find these articles interesting because a while ago (almost a year? I don't fully remember) the Netherlands got their share of F35's delivered and guess what?
They had to cope with the exact same problems! Delivery couldn't be made in time because of bad weather. However, the given arguments were also that the plane might have problems landing. Yeah, bad weather. I'd say it would be a good war exercise but nah.
I'm starting to get the impression that these things simply can't operate all that well in bad weather.It would even make sense, because in Holland they're replacing the F16 but are actually a lot less functional. Can carry less ammo, have a smaller action radius, they were supposed to be used to provide support for ground troops but that doesn't work very well...
Anyway, here's my best wishes for the British! Let's hope your chaps won't have to suffer from hypoxia which was another discovered F35 flaw not too long ago.
Wonder which new and exciting way they're gonna fuck it up.
It doesn't have to go down that way though.
I'm a vivid Minecraft player, a game Microsoft bought for around 2.5 billion, and we've had the same share of doom scenario's: it would mean the end of Minecraft because $Microsoft. And of course also because originally Minecraft is build on Java and we all know Microsoft somewhat competes against that with their C#.NET platform. This would be bad(tm).
Now, in all honesty they have made a somewhat controversial decision by renaming the original Minecraft version into "Minecraft - Java edition" while they focused themselves on the so called "Pocket Edition" which is now dubbed the 'default' or 'real' Minecraft edition.
Not a popular decision for sure, but it does make some sense if you consider that there are more players on the consoles than on the Java version.
But this is the thing: the so called "doomed" Java version is still going strong and is still being actively maintained. In fact: the Java version is currently used to pitch and test new features and ideas and after they have been tested and set up on Java do they get moved to the Windows 10 version and beyond ("PE").
At the time of writing the Java edition is anxiously awaiting release 1.13, dubbed Project Aquatica.
Microsoft being bad for Minecraft? Sorry, but so far I haven't noticed any of that. In fact I can even say that it is the opposite. Because also... please mention a game where you can play multiplayer on the PC and across gaming consoles alike? I'm not that big a gamer, but to my knowledge there aren't that many, if maybe none at all. Minecraft does.
There's a lot of prejudice and negativity towards Microsoft and sure: some of the stories are definitely true. But it doesn't have to be all bad. I've (sporadically) used their Codeplex website and that too wasn't all that bad. Heck, Microsoft was even realistic enough to eventually conclude that Github was the better website.
So yeah, I'm not worried. I think this could also turn out into a good thing for Github.
Regarding Java Minecraft
"All Mods and the big community is on Java client, yet it will never get the graphics improvements and new features - those are Win10 only."
So how do you explain the upcoming Project Aquatica?
Sorry, but you're talking bullshit. 1.13 gets the Java edition a completely overhauled (improved) command system, new blocks and mobs, new game designs (buried treasure, sunken ships, ocean ruins, and dolphins which can lead you to said ruins), improved world generation, new biomes, severely improved customization (create your own crafting & smelting recipes, functions, structures.. and add 'm all into your own datapack)...
It even enhanced graphics; full screen playing is handled a lot better these days.
Not just that:
* Game library updated to LWJGL 3.
* Optimized cloud rendering.
* Optimized fog rendering.
Or what about this, a planned feature:
* World generation will become data-driven, using json files, allowing for custom structures.
Sorry, but you're sharing some very serious nonsense here.
You make a valid point, however it requires more context. I mean... you do realize that it's very easy to set up a construction using a specific refspec which makes sure that you don't pull it directly onto the master but another (sub)branch instead?
Or... what if the project makes sure that only production worthy code gets onto the master branch and everything else remains limited to the dev branches?
Ergo: you can pull code onto a production server, but that is no guarantee that it will also immediately go live right away.
Still; how is this any different from, say, a server pulling packages directly from a repository? It doesn't have to pose any risks, depending on context.
You make it sound as if this construction is always a bad idea, but it doesn't have to.
Those virii could also override the write protection tab on a floppy with ease. That was the scary part because, until I learned otherwise, I always thought that the readonly tab would trigger a routine in the drive itself which would then make it refuse to do anything.
Well.. that's not the way it works and you can actually bypass all that. So much for floppy security...
And so the world of IT "professionals <cough, cough>" just keeps on rolling because most beancounters (that's all they are now) couldn't care less. And this is why I keep following El Reg because you guys never seem to lose focus on stuff which matters, stuff for nerds! Wait... (yes, that was a sneer).
Best wishes to his family, and I wish them strength in these horrible times. My heart is out with you today guys...
I still have an old TV console (dated: 1972) which featured Pong (and pong varients) as the main games. When I get back from work I'm going to try and hook it up in remembrance. No.. I do not know Mr. Dabney and I definitely don't want to pretend otherwise. So why? Because I can, that's all reasoning I need.
Rest in peace Mr. Dabney, my thoughts will go out to you and your family, especially this evening when I'll be trying a game of Pong again myself. Thank you for all you've done.
"He hates unions, journalists, regulators, accountability and, apparently, the color yellow"
Many critics are also often met with a little bit of disdain I think, especially if they start asking specific questions. Which I think is plain out weird at times.
I mean... I can definitely respect the fact that Musk is a "do'er", he actually tries to get stuff going and no one can deny that. But at the same time I also think its fair to say that many of his ideas aren't exactly original but have been tried in the past before. I mean... take the idea for the rocket which can also land itself: there was already an actual working concept around in the 90's.
I get the impression that he also doesn't really enjoy getting reminded of those facts either.
My Office 2010 (I never bothered to upgrade because I failed to see the need) is still running nicely on Windows 7. I got several security updates not too long ago and everything simply works.
No slurping, no messages, just my trusty VBA powered Office environment.
I can only imagine it now:
Thank you for sending us this very important data. Customer feedback is important to us, that's why we want to collect more! And, like you, we feel strongly about our environment. So what we do with our software is therefor also our business. That's what you pay us for after all!
Looking forward to getting (much) more data from you!
Your friend Cortana
I know of several celebrities who have done the exact same thing, so I assume this ruling also applies to that? All public figures after all... Some can't stand critics.
Personally I think this is a very peculiar ruling, no matter if you're in favor or against Trump, and I can't help but wonder if this isn't going to do a lot more damage than people may anticipate.
Don't pay up front for something that doesn't even exist yet. Not unless you're really, really, really, REALLY sure. And if the project is hosted on IndieGoGo reconsider your options once again.
Seriously though, I can't believe how many would fall for this sort of thing. Even in this day and age. All it took was a close look at the comment section of several totally random IndieGoGo projects: most of them all shared a disturbing aspect: customers complaining about delayed project(s) and no delivery. And not just a handfull of projects: nearly every (random) project I looked at would feature a noticeable amount of unsatisfied followers who complained about those issues.
I can understand this to happen on a few projects, and I also fully recognize the aspect that people are generally more inclined to respond when they have a complaint than if they're satisfied. All true.
Yet even so... so many complaints about non-delivery can't be good either way.
""We can stop all the conspiracy theories about Hitler. He did not flee to Argentina in a submarine, he is not in a hidden base in Antarctica or on the dark side of the moon," Professor Philippe Charlier told the Agence-France Press newswire."
I've seen enough horror movies in the 60's to recognize what has happened here; by examining the bones the professor has now also been infested with the evil Hitler brainwaves which are now taking over his body. Careful everyone!
Is it only me who can't help but notice that it's almost every time someone from the same school who is responsible for this kind of horrific action? And am I the only one wondering what led up to all this?
For all I know the kid could have been bullied for most of his time at school and eventually snapped and decided to take things to extremes. That would definitely tell you something about the mental state of the shooter, but it would also reveals quite a bit about the school they attended. However, the 'why' part is usually fully ignored, even though you could increase your chances of trying to prevent stuff like this from happening if you did pay some attention to that too. Just make sure you're not treating this as some kind of twisted 'excuse' but to find ways where you might improve on things.
I can't help but get the impression that instead of walk outs from school to protest against gun violence it might be a much better idea to organize a walk IN: trying to band together and to make sure that all students are pretty much on the same level. Especially where mutual respect for each other is concerned.
You really don't need anything fancy to set this up. Simply using a Git repository where each branch contains a specific configuration and is provided through a worktree is more than enough. I've been using this system for quite a while now, blogged about it here, and it works like a charm.
Once you try to set up something like this will you fully realize just what an amazing product Git actually is and all the weird stuff it can actually do. I'm still a little hyped about (for example): git push -u remote-repo +HEAD:refs/heads/newbranch. This will push your current repo onto a remote repository but as a new branch. And it will track said remote repository branch too. Try doing that with tools such as Subversion :)
I doubt that much is going to change here.
Because ask yourself this: why do those developers and/or companies chose to use open source to power their setup? The answer is usually to save money. And I doubt that the 'aftermath' such as keeping things up to date or bothering yourself over licenses would add to that, so it's often enough ignored.
"Agile is relying on meaningless ritual and mantras rather than on your own intelligence."
No it's not.
See, that's is the exact same problem you see happening with other development / design schemes such as UML / SysML. It's not the practice or the modeling language which relies on meaningless crap: that's what those beancounters / consultants want to make you believe.
Take for example "You need to stand during the daily meeting". That is bollocks, because the standing part is only a means. The goal is to keep the whole meeting as short as possible. You don't have to stand up for that, you can just as easy sit down and agree that each person gets no more than 2 - 3 minutes to summarize their issue(s).
But if you're in a crowd where no one questions anything and blindly allow themselves to get led around by example alone then you get into this mess. But in this case you really should blame the messenger.
... that Musk didn't simply recently discover a totally new way to make some extra cash: sell forum access?
And as far as I can tell some Tesla owners can really use some of those pills :)
"Canonical wrote “we are working on the ability to flag specific publishers as verified. The details of that will be announced soon, but the basic idea is that it’ll be easier for users to identify that the person or organisation publishing the snap are who they claim to be.”.
So the thing I fail to understand: when was identity ever an issue? It looks to me as if the identity of the user had little to do with all this but mostly the act of them trying to "borrow" resources from your environment. It's not the user but the product which was the problem.
How much extra money would the developers have to cough up for them to be verified I wonder? Is this Canonical's own way of trying to gather up some extra cash without too much extra effort being involved?
I mean.. The way I read all this they're basically saying that: "Verified users will be more trustworthy than non-verified users", which I think can create very dangerous precedences. But mostly: so if my application informs the user somewhere at the bottom of page 6 in small print that there will also be crypto mining involved, would that be counted as informing the audience? Because technically I did, wouldn't you agree?
Why not plan for a rule to plain out ban any behavior of this kind?
Yeah, not just expensive but pretty arrogant too. I'm still quite disappointed when I learned about this to be honest but at one point Assange even started calling out the Ecuadorian president because he was all in favor of Catelonia going independent and Ecuador was not. Whatever happened to respect thy host?
He's eating their food, he's using their Internet connection and apparently he has no problems at all just pissing over their political statements "because". Some guest...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018