Re: oh yea..
Our tolerance for those who speak and write English as a second language is probably why English took over from French as the world's lingua franca.
1226 posts • joined 24 Feb 2012
Our tolerance for those who speak and write English as a second language is probably why English took over from French as the world's lingua franca.
How would an MBA or CFO see this?
I think this way.
For skilled jobs it is always cheaper for an employer to let some other company or a country do the training, and you just hire the trained person away.
Plus hiring skilled people away from developing countries hinders the development of the developing country's own competing industry. Meaning you have a side benefit of smothering cheaper competition.
The cost of tossing current citizens and immigrants out onto the unemployment heap, the costs of benefits/welfare is born by taxpayers in general, not the company in particular.
Also bringing people in on work permits lays the groundwork for later moving that business sector offshore completely.
So it is shareholder and executive greed, greased in some countries by campaign donations to those who decide visa quotas.
A mssion statement is not a plan:
"The Department of Defence's Cyber Strategy already lists “Defend the U.S. homeland and U.S. national interests against cyberattacks of significant consequence” as one of its three missions, so it is unclear exactly what new plans Trump expects."
That is just a mission statement.
There probably is some kind of plan -- last year's plan at best.
What year-old plan to defend against cyber warfare is adequate?
Was the plan ever adequate? Reading the register, I doubt it, there are simply so many undiscovered holes out there in every useful operating system, and probably also the microcode for every useful CPU and large scale general purpose packaged software.
Plans against cyber warfare will always be iterative and never perfect. There will always be new holes to discover. Until one day AI eliminates all humans*, there will always be holes in large software systems.
* Not human programmers. All humans.
Pretty much every human on the planet has racist opinions of some kind or another.
The thing is we overlook racist opinions we agree with on the basis of 'facts' and 'statistics'.
Like that today. Like that in the 1930s. Like that during the crusades. Like that in the iron age. Probably like that in the stone age too. People overlook their own racist bigotry because they see it as factually and statistically valid.
The question is what actions they take based on them? Most regular people aren't involved in hiring or selecting who goes to which school. Racism is more dangerous when educated people and people with power engage in it. And so many people with BAs (and in the UK, PPEs) are treated as if they are educated in knowledge.
Education in promulgating establishment and counter establishment dogma and myth is not education in knowledge.
I'm using the international English definition of race, not the Merriam-Webster definition of skin color. Taking skin color as race has been widely and totally discredited by science, since skin color varies randomly too much.
And you've got a panel of supposed 'disinterested and impartial' judges who maybe aren't.
It is pretty hard to be disinterested on an issue where you think the value of your investments and landholdings will be greatly affected by the decision, let alone the investments and landholdings of all your family members and friends.
The number of junior UK judges who'd be impoverished enough to meet the disinterested and impartial bar on the issue would be zero, let alone UK Supreme Court judges who have a lifetime of possessions and friendships.
1. An example of fake news from close to home:
"to help penetration testers" LOL.
Seems to me it is to drum up money for security dudes by creating widely available tools that create the environment necessary for hiring them.
If the objective was to enhance security on the web these so-called testing tools would leave behind some sort of serial number or indelible trace that would lead to the registered purchaser of the 'testing' product.
2. One could easily come up with fake news examples from the NY Times and Washington Posts during the last election:
a. Every single poll in the last 2 weeks that showed Clinton headed to overwhelming victory.
b. The political items summary after the Republican Primary was over that showed a couple of articles on Clinton, a dozen articles on the yesterday's news of the Republican Primary, and one article on Sanders indicating how Clinton was better. And this making people think Sanders wasn't campaigning went on for over a week.)
3. The Guardian is even worse, what with articles stating without question or editorial remark that "all men are racist", that "all white people are racist" and that "only white people are racist".
That is the thing with fake news, genuine media outlets become full of false news because so often reporters and journalists either start to personally identify with sources.
Major 'well respected' news organizations full of it, but like the rest of us they don't see their own failings.
Of course comedy on a comedy website is relatively harmless compared to propaganda from a 'well respected' news site.
Apple wants to do better than Yahoo at maintaining its privacy.
When Yahoo's product leaked personal details people found out 2 years later. Apple wants to be sure it can keep its secrets longer.
Unlike normal people, when our omniscient, omnipotent and infallible overlords get fired they get a bonus.
Her golden parachute for when she 'messed up' was probably negotiated at the time of her hiring to be in the 10s of millions.
And unlike contracts for the rest of us, the contracts for such important types are usually worded to stand up even if the messing up was an intentional criminal act on their part.
How else could you ever get someone to take such a job?
Or monitor all of Russia's internet communications to the outside world.
Oh wait, the Americans already do that. And not just to Russia but also to America's allies and to Americans themselves.
How can Americans and Obamaites complain about Russia hacking their enemy when the USA not only hacks its enemies but its long-term loyal allies, NATO and NORAD partners, and even its own peaceful citizens?
Government leaders and government organizations should expect to be hacked by enemies. Even mid-sized governments have the resources to protect themselves from enemies.
It is ordinary people who need protection from hacking.
And you should not hack your friends. It is beyond far impolite. (Seriously, if you hack your friends and allies you have a really perverted idea of what friendship is.)
It would not surprise me if the American definition of hacking turned out to be similar to their definition of terrorist: more dependent on who is doing it rather than on what is being done.
Hairdressers and telephone sanitisers.
Now there is "news we can use". Like with the previously mentioned awkward sub-standard USB socket placement. Those are technical points that are relevant to purchasing decisions. Color is not.
It sounds like one of those blond jokes half my family hates.
LaCie? You don't have to compete with LaCie because LaCie portable drives have SeaGate drives inside. No technically competent and experienced person will rely on a Seagate drive, they are only reliable enough in redundant arrays.
Excuse me sir, what color of computer are you looking for? Oh, yes, and what color mouse?
(That said, I wish power cables weren't all black, having different dark colors would make sorting through my surge protectors at home easier.)
What techies want to hear about on portable disk drives is shock protection, durability, physical size, capacity, price and *warrantee*.
If they do then those sensors they would be one of the main selling points. There is nothing in the specs or sales literature to indicate that they do, so the sensible thing is to assume they don't.
Why the heck would anyone install a preliminary Industry Integration Test Version of software on a production computer?
The only fault I can see on MS's actions is not putting the text "Industry Integration Test Version" in big yellow letters on a bright read back ground on the desktop and start menu.
I suppose they figure if people don't read the warnings before installation they won't read the warnings later. But that overlooks that one person might install the test OS on the computer and an end user might come along later completely oblivious to it being a test system.
I have no sympathy for
journalists reporters who don't know what a test system is.
Why cross out where you note that people running Insider Rings have volunteered to be guinea pigs? Volunteering to be guinea pigs is exactly what they did.
They're running Industry Integration Test Versions of the operating system and they should darn well expect there to be bugs.
The only people I would feel sorry for are those end users who had a sysadmin unprofessionally install a test version on an end user computer for production use, and for readers subjected to the writings of reporters who don't know what test versions are.
IPv14 will work in ALL the various realities because it will use quantum IP addresses.
You call getALLaddrs passing an infinite array with elements of infinite bytes to accept the infinitely infinite results.
So you tunnel your IP address. Doesn't that mean that you're hogging both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address? That's not a solution.
Also, why would home users go to the complexity of tunneling? It is just another point of failure.
Aren't most of us on IPv4 because our ISP only supports IPv4 for our geographic location?
For home users, Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 in default configuration seem ready to go with whichever IPv is connected, whatever the router and ISP provide. (I've never tested it though.) ISP goes to v6 and we automatically go to v6 -- except maybe for the NAT routers. But then the NAT routers are usually owned by the ISP.
There is no sense on trying to sell to non-decision makers. If the 3 federal governments in North America want IPv6 then they must mandate a transition to IPv6 -- companies are not going to voluntarily forgo profits.
It is really doubtful that someone running an old unsupported OS is keeping their browser up-to-date.
The browser isn't going to fix the security holes in the OS and hardware.
Mozilla will have statistics on what OSs it's latest browser versions have been installed on. Are any of the last 3 versions running on XP and Vista? Yeah right, none. I couldn't imagine otherwise.
If people are content to run their old computers on unsupported old software, the web browser will be just another piece of old unsupported software. They can keep running the old versions.
Don't make life more complicated that it actually is.
From the article it seems STUN could be the next big DDoS protocol.
Hopefully there will be a refinement that ensures that doesn't happen.
Sheesh, Apple has done this for years and has had great success for most of those years.
It makes sense for Blackberry to emulate their business model.
It will take the loss of business by phone makers and telecos to get Android phones updated
If Google and its customers (the call phone hardware companies and telecos) don't get with it ensuring that Android systems are promptly patched end-client companies will start requiring (maybe even providing) either iOS or Windows Phone on any bring-your-own devices allowed on the network.
Android OEMs and lazy telecos are probably the only hope MS has of getting Windows Phone to prosper.
But really, why would a teleco care what the OS is on the phone it is selling? Android, iOS, Windows Phone, they'll sell what the end-customer is willing to pay for. The profit is similar regardless.
Maybe Google should either give up on Android or make mandatory timely fixes to security vulnerabilities part of its license agreement.
But does Google make enough money off of Android to care? Or is it just a prestige "we make an OS" thing with them? Anyone here know for sure?
IANA was a US agency. It was and is under the US government.
IANA was broken off from the US government so it could be handed over to an international body.
ICANN is the international body that came along to take IANA off the USA's hands.
After a handover, ICANN will likely consume IANA so that IANA can never be taken away from it. Then they'll be just the one body, where IANA will be a department within it.
It has. It really doesn't matter what techies think of ICANN. What matters is what politicians and the mainstream media think of ICANN.
And what politicians and the mainstream media think of the IANA handover to ICANN is based on argumentum ad hominem, ergo decedo.
Sadly politicians and media 'political analysts' think that multi-dimensional beliefs, like political beliefs, can be reduced to a scalar, the left-wing/right-wing scalar.
Keeping IANA controlled by the USA is a 'right-wing extremist' view.
Letting ICANN run IANA is a mainstream view (i.e. left-wing extremist view).
If your cause is labeled right-wing you might as well give up and go live in the wilderness, because the entire right-wing has been outed as totally being a bunch of trolls on every issue there is (by the left-wing trolls, people who own the only credibility these days).
Most techies have enough math to know that reducing a multi-dimensional value to a scalar for comparison is invalid. We remember being told in grade 9 (or your national equivalent) that such a procedure is mathematically and logically invalid. But politicians, political analysts and political journalists have forgotten whatever intermediate math they sat through in school.)
Delaying the handover of IANA to ICANN is not an issue on the left-wing/right-wing axis.
Preventing handover would not be on the imperialist/freedom axis either, because the current options are one imperial power (the USA) or another (ICANN bureaucracy). Sticking with the USA is not liberty.
But the proposal is DELAYING the handover until there is a nationally independent democratic organization to take control, a replacement to ICANN or an totally re-done ICANN. So delaying the handover for another year, even two years, is on the imperialist/freedom axis.
I think that is why the right-wing adopted it and the left-wing rejected it, they were going by the world "freedom". "Anything freedom" this year is right-wing and the left-wing says only trolls will support it.
Sadly the cause of delaying the handover has been taken on by the right-wing, and just because of who is handling the cause it will be rejected -- argumentum ad hominem, ergo decedo.
Because we're told only 'right-wing extremist loonies' like Ted Cruz oppose the handover.
And we know Ted Cruz is a 'right-wing extremist loonie' because his counterparts on the extreme left-wing tell us so.
Just because someone is unlikable and unpopular and disagrees with you on things doesn't mean they're ALWAYS wrong.
Without serious modifications before the hand-over ICANN is going to follow in the evil footsteps of FIFA and the IOC.
Except that the video shows him passing entire rows of unreserved seats, vacant side-by-side pairs across the aisle from vacant side-by-side pairs, as he gets on the train. That is what was in the first car, before he went to the second car, the one whose photo The Guardian, er The Reg choose to post.
"Meanwhile, an unopposed Tory Government is running the country off the rails entirely"
You raise a red herring.
The issue of whether Corbyn has the moral fiber to lead is central to Labour's current lack of leadership.
Is Corbyn a grandstanding egotistical goof who embrasses ideology to futher personal power?
Is Corbyn another version of Tony Blair or another version of Donald Trump?
Jeremy Corbin released the information himself in a lie.
I'm distressed to see a journalistic publication that I'd formerly respected claiming that there is no public interest in revealing politicians lies.
I dare say, if this had been a Conservative politician lying this lame excuse of privacy agreements overriding national interest on issues where the individual involved had waived privacy -- it would never be brought up.
Pure partisanship on the part of the press ignoring standard press reasoning because they want to protect their ideological leader from legitimate debate and exposure as a liar.
Gee a newspaper complaining about private info being released.
Isn't the standard reasoning "public interest". You print what is supposed to be confidential because there is an over-riding public interest that overrides standard procedures.
Without the 'public interest' reasoning every newspaper in the UK, USA and Australia would be blank, because privacy rights extend to everything government does that involves members of the public and government employees.
The Reg's selected photo shows the second carriage, where most seats were reserved.
It was the first carriage that had the mass of unreserved seats, including entire rows of seats.
It is a reflection on the state of Linux and the public image of Linux that it can't give away for free a commodity that normally costs $100.
I do not doubt that if Linux took over consumer desktops that we'd find it had a many vulnerabilities as Windows 95. That is why specifically targeted organizations (defense establishments, banks, and high tech) generally using Windows when they can -- most of the holes have been discovered because Windows has been checked over far more thoroughly than MacOS or Linux.
The 'security by obscurity' that comes from using a less common product evaporates when you're a special target for which organizations will develop custom code.
But if you disagree, and you might well be right, then it points even more strongly to the Linux teams' images and marketing skills. Torvalds should completely step back from being the public face of Linux.
Personally I think it is a mix of Linux having far more holes than Linux fanbois think and Torvalds corporately unacceptable image.
So I followed the link you gave us
and I see a different story than the article gives:
"For each of the supported systems listed on the OEM pages, the OEM has committed to additional testing, regular validation of Windows Updates, and publishing drivers and firmware for Windows 10 on Windows Update which will help unlock the security and power management benefits of Windows 10 once the systems are upgraded."
That is, the OEMs have backed down. They're paying for special support by writing the drivers and doing the necessary testing. That is how I read what the press release says.
But oh no, the hardware types have got to bash MS.
As I explained to the MS bashing hardware types, regardless of what hardware sales executives like to say, it is not MS's business to sell computers.
'Gosh' knows, if your customers decided en mass that preferred (or at least were prepared to tolerate) Linux you'd en mass ditch MS and install Linux.
Any failure to sell hardware is hardware vendors fault. Especially since hardware vendors have their choice of multiple operating system vendors.
PC and hardware isn't selling because hardware is not providing new useful features that make old hardware obsolete. A smaller desktop computer does not mean the desk itself can be any smaller. And in a typical office switching from florescent to LED lighting will save much more energy at much less cost than going from a Core i3-nnn to a Core i3-5nnn.
Hardware vendors will shortly find their laptop and phone sales declining for the same reason, although not declining as much because portable stuff is much more likely to physically break.
I expect that MS will shift to making money the way money is made off of Linux.
An increasing portion of the revenue will business clients paying for training, support and additions to the operating system.
It will also make an increasing portion of its revenue from cloud services.
Apple, Adobe, Sun (and Java), Mozilla, they all make money advertising other people's products, and MS does too.
But I don't see MS going down the path that Google did and becoming primarily an advertising company.
For one thing, MS is widely used in governments, businesses, classrooms and they'd loose that business if they tried pushing ads in the volume Google does.
"No. Google pushes ads at you when you ask it a question, it by and large leaves you alone the rest of the time. MS controls your desktop and so can interrupt you whenever it feels that it won't cause you to hit the screen. "
1. You're ignoring Chrome, and
2. You're running an Ad Blocker on Youtube so you don't see the constant inundation of advertising.
3. AdWords -- that is Google. Google does advertising on maybe 80% of web pages served up.
Either you've drunken the Apple Fanbois CoolAid, you're letting your imagination run wild, or your computer is infected.
So far there are no ads in Windows 10.
Apple is in the business of selling computers. If you're a hardware vendor maybe look at what they do.
But unlike Apple, MS is insisting that you can't sell minimally powered soon-to-be-obsolete new machines labeled for the current operating system.
No, MS is not in the business of selling your computers for you. Neither is Linux.
MS has a split interest in appealing to vendors, but also protecting its customers.
And since it makes much more revenue from customers (for software and training) than vendors that split is not even. MS is watching out more for customers than for vendors.
Yes, Windows 10 Anniversary Update boosted the requirements for a Windows logo sticker on NEW machines. This is to ensure that newly purchased machines don't go obsolete too quickly.
NO, Windows 10 Anniversary Update does not require any additional resources from existing machines.
In addition, there have been very few desktops and laptops sold in the past 5 years with less than 4 GB, so I don't know what inspired the following strange statement:
"Windows 10 Anniversary Update – which we recently revealed has been freezing computers – puts more pressure on the hardware, demanding at least 2GB of memory, so only those running really recent machines with Windows 7 and 8.1 will realistically be able to start running the Anniversary Update"
I suspect that the freezing computers are often occurring because neither MS nor users nor admins are checking their antivirus is compatible with the Anniversary Update.
That is a mistake I made.
In my case my issues were solved by uninstalling and reinstalling my Kaspersky Total Security.
Let us have more honesty and less hype. Let us have people doing their own jobs and not expecting other people to do their jobs for them.
Windows 10 will run on phones for gosh sakes, so it certainly runs on first generation 2 GB Core i3 laptop systems, provided they don't have exotic peripherals or software.
Of course it helps a great deal if the person doing the update knows to check for AV, video, sound, network and printer compatibility before doing the update. Home users have a bit of an excuse since they can't be expected to know that -- home users can legitimately complain that MS should be doing that for them. But an IT professional lacking that knowledge? It points to a failure in hiring and training.
"without her you can't search even local files on your own computer. you can't turn her off."
1. I just did a search without Cortana using Windows Explorer.
2. Cortana can be turned off, I did that earlier this morning.
3. I just looked at Windows Indexing in the Control Panel and it looks exactly like it did last week.
They've added some features to Cortana apparently. I suppose that is nice for people who like that kind fo thing. But those of us who don't are not being forced to use it.
This leaves PC builders (and tablet and phone builders) having to figure out how to improve their products if they want to sell them.
Maybe they should spend as much on engineering as they do on marketing and Hollywood CEO salaries?
For decades retail users and sysadmins alike have complained about bloatware in Windows.
Now MS is removing the bloat and optimizing the code.
That is good for MS, its retail customers, and sysadmins. But it won't do the job that PC builder staff and executives are paid to do.
PC, tablet and phone builders are going to have to find their own improvements to move their products.
For now they probably have a reprieve, due to 3D applications. They need some new 'must have' for after that.
I have to agree that there is nothing visibly useful in the Anniversary Update.
In other words, MS is finally reducing application bloat, something critics have long badgered MS to do..
Windows is becoming more and more an operating system, rather than a bunch of bloated applications bundled with an operating system. This is what we've been asking for. Although now they've give it to us, yeah it is boring.
What the Anniversary Update is good for I suppose is what the other updates this year were good for: Closing bugs, security vulnerabilities and reducing wasted cycles.
But I wish they'd have made the desktop look more appealing, easier on the eyes, with a 'finished look'.
The Anniversary Update color schemes are garish and butt ugly. Sadly, in most of the real world appearances count for a lot more than performance. I don't know how I'm going to convince any one a product that looks this rough and ugly is worth trying on staff computers.
That was the thing with Steve Jobs and Apple. Nobody cared that their products we "me toos" of someone else's creative idea. What mattered was they were astonishingly pretty and packaged like meticulously, like designer perfumes. (They looked great before they were secreted away inside of ugly rubber iPhone condom cases.)
MS just doesn't understand how much looks matter over substance to lay-people and hobbyists. And executive ranks are all made up of lay-people (even CIOs are mostly sales people, not techies). Appealing to lay-people is a business essential for IT, since the folks we work for are lay-people.
The update installed fine after about an hours processing. And it hasn't crashed.
1. The Anniversary Update seems to have turned off System Restore and deleted all the restore points.
It did this without warning. If I hadn't done a fullish settings check after the update I'd never have known.
And it didn't turn System Restore back on again, I had to do that manually.
2. Active hours can't be changed from 8 AM to 5 PM.
In Settings > Windows Update you are supposed to be able to set active hours, the hours you're using the computer during which it isn't supposed to do updates.
I wanted to change the active hours to noon to midnight, and it wouldn't accept that. It wouldn't accept any change. It kept the active hours at 8 AM to 5 PM.
3. The available colors for the desktop are wildly garish, blindingly white, or dank and dark.
4. The desktop is still totally 2D. On large screens this reduces the intuitiveness of the interface. It makes it all look blah.
"Under normal circumstances, if they formed a cartel-against-Cupertino, the banks would take a battering from the competition regulator, so they've asked permission to negotiate as a group."
Cartels are generally illegal when they are for monopolies.
Other cartels are, when openly formed, like those for hardware standards, or to bid on defense contracts, are legal.
This cartel is fighting to break-up Apple's monopoly. So the competition regulator should be pleased.
What makes Clinton II the bigger risk is that she'd actually stay in office for at least one full term, and the bureaucrats would obey her.
If Trump wins he'll first be ignored, and ignored far more than Obama ever was. The CIA director and several top generals have already said they'll ignore illegal orders from Trump.
If congress fails to over rule Trump's actions first, the SCOTUS will over rule them.
Then Trump will probably be impeached.
And if he isn't impeached, sad to say the US is the country where everyone has the "right to bear arms" to prevent tyranny. So sadly I see a Trump sharing the fates of Lincoln and Kennedy. (I'm against violence, but I'm a Canadian, not an American.)
So I'm not worried about Trump. The USA has plenty of legal and illegal checks and balances to counter him.
But when Clinton is elected, and she will be, she'll successfully continue the establishment's "US War on the Middle Class", on the world's middle classes, and on the sovereignty of foreign governments.
So Clinton is the real risk.
Obama said it at the White House Correspondents dinner: The press is responsible for Trump being where he is. The press pushed him and covered him, and paying equal attention only to Hillary, paying little attention to the other candidates, and ridiculing and ignoring the best candidates.
They took a guy who ran for office to get some publicity for himself and his brand, and put him in the final running for the White House.
As Obama said to the press at that dinner, "I hope you're proud of yourselves."
What you're seeing is the Wall St establishment and the idle rich using the newspapers and TV networks they own to give the middle class the choice between another rich candidate with a history of successfully defeating the middle class and a kook.
The press covered Clinton and Trump, while suppressing and ridiculing the reasonable candidates, like Sanders, Ron Paul, and so on.
The Brexit thing is actually a good idea, nothing to be embarrassed about.
As for Boris Johnson, I suppose you're fooled by the light-colored fly-away hair into thinking he has anything in common with Trump. Johnson doesn't.
(I wonder if you're a Canadian. Canadians have a history of often picking PMs on the basis of personal appearance and charming looks, rather than past performance and policies.)
Considered and rejected based on mountains of evidence.
"Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Trump said: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
I personally have little doubt that Israelis, French, Germans, Brazilians, Mexicans and Iranians have also hacked into US government computers, and that at least the Israelis, French, Germans had success.
>> So Trump is merely asking the Russians to look at their copy of the emails that have since been deleted from US government and Clinton personal mail servers, copies they made back before the emails and backups were deleted.
It would be pointless to ask them to hack in and find the emails on US government servers now, they're all deleted from US government and Clinton private email servers. <<
Now, the USA has publicly stated that federal agencies can legally break into foreign computer systems, including foreign government computer systems, and the intelligence services of other countries are all federal agencies, and to them US computer systems are all foreign computer systems.
The USA has set the precedent that it is legal.
Nobody at the NSA went to jail. The US does not consider it a criminal act for one government to hack into another government's computer systems. Rather, when discovered it is just a case for diplomatic tit-for-tat gestures.
I read the story and I immediately wondered about Linux and whether or not that is a similar situation waiting to happen. Whether or not, I have no idea.
The USA has a lot of "at will" employment contracts, which basically put employees in exactly the state you say. But I doubt Applebaum, a senior executive, had such a contract. More likely he had previously negotiated golden parachute to cover him in events like this.
systemd'oh! DNS lib underscore bug bites everyone's favorite init tool, blanks Netflix
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017