Re: I hate "naming rights"
d) Johan Gambolputty [etc.] von Hautkopft of Ulm
5342 posts • joined 1 May 2015
Probably the best example...
When I was at U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School (Orlando, FL) back in the early 80's, there were a lot of officers (as well as us enlisted types) at the school, in 2 different buildings. Between the officer's and enlisted buildings, there was a large circular sidewalk. One day the entire officer class was walking on the circle, and they deliberately went "the other way" so they wouldn't have to salute anyone. Now the military REQUIRES enlisted people to salute officers, and the officers are supposed to salute back.
Well, I was walking 'that way' and needed to walk around the circle to get to where I was going. So I went along the same path as the entire officer class, and basically SALUTED THEM ALL, with a nice fat grin on my face. Yeah, it was kind of a joke.
A couple of years later one of the officers (being Engineering Officer of the Watch) was telling a story in the maneuvering area (where the engine room control panels are, including reactor control) and I was the reactor operator, and he was telling this story about how "some enlisted guy" [or similar] caused his entire class to have to free up their saluting arm and salute him.
"Hey that was me!"
In any case he didn't appreciate the joke, even a couple of years later. Nothing ever came of it, of course, since I didn't do anything "wrong" but it was typical of me to be "overly military" as a form of humor.
Related, whenever I spoke over the P.A. system (the shutdown reactor operator had supervisory authority over the engine room most of the time while in port) I always used a 'near gravel' voice, spoken close to the microphone, in a manner similar to Officer Jack Friday from Dragnet. One officer commented that it sounded "overly official". And of course, it did. But then again, who's gonna get you in trouble for being "too military" ??? [and it was always clear and easy to understand]
icon, because, devilish humor
usually, I prefer something that lacks "feature creep", i.e. the developers focus on PERFORMANCE instead of "new, new, shiny" and PISSING! ME! OFF! with features like Australis 2D FLATTY McFLATFACE everywhere...
"let's compile everything to machine language", if it provides PERFORMANCE, sounds good to me.
What I don't want: another thing WORSE than the BRIGHT BLUE ON BLINDINGLY BRIGHT WHITE 2D FLATTY McFLATFACE look that has been CRAMMED UP OUR ASSES for the last several years...
/me still uses an ESR version of firefox that pre-dates 57 with the "classic Firefox" plugins, on Linux and FreeBSD. And I don't surf the web from windows. So there ya go. no need for 'feature creep'.
Modifying the browser extension APIs in an underhanded way that seeks to underhandedly remove choice and freedom from the customer base will ONLY create a vacuum, into which a competing product can jump.
The bar is higher now, because of all of the "scripty" crap, and it's not just HTML any more, it's HTML5 and backward compatibility and DOM and plugins and who can imagine what else...
But I've been *VERY* irritated by the directions that browsers are heading into. I think that a 'webkit' kind of approach is the correct one, in which the front end (like Midori as one example) uses a standard engine (like webkit, for example) which is adapted for your GUI toolkit (like gtk or Qt, for example), to run on "your platform".
So I should be able to use "my front end" which is 3D skeuomorphic and has built-in 'NoScript' and URL black-listing capabilities, for example, as a WRAPPER around "the rest of those things", to provide a competing browser that has some straightforward ad-blocking capability. And the vast majority of the security-related problems would be in code I don't have to maintain.
yeah, just need $$$ so I can devote time to it...
this is what I expect from Fa[e]cebook.
After they confess, pay the fine, and the investigations stop, will they turn over a new leaf?
_I_ _DON'T_ _THINK_ _SO_!!!
Yeah, after they wash away their sins, with the fresh scented "sinner's soap" of FTC fines and promises not to do it again, it will merely leave them with that "do it again" scent so they can rinse and repeat...
No matter how much Micro-shaft tries, they'll NEVER replace C++ and native Win32 calls with their bloatware ".Not" no matter WHAT they call it.
And I'd be better off targeting GTK or Qt if I want cross-platform. Trying to shoehorn ".Not Core" into POSIX operating systems is laughable, at best, frightening at worst, and yet another "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" attempt to those of us who actually KNOW better.
I was a total Microsoft Windows fan up until the announcement of the ".Not Initative" when Ballmer took the reigns. The 1997 PDC here in San Diego was the last conference I went to. I instinctively knew that Micro-shaft had made a sharp turn and was heading into the WRONG direction.
So the idea that they've taken something that worked really well in DevStudio for C++ applications ('data changed' breakpoints, something I have made use of before, LONG ago) and _FINALLY_ got around to putting into the ".Nonsense" side of things, it's no great accomplishment. Wheee.
I got used to MFC with the old 'Visual C++" stuff, back in the 16-bit days, even, and I think *THAT* IDE [which was VERY typist-friendly] is STILL BETTER than anything that Micro-shaft has produced since they went all VB-ish with their "properties" windows for dialog controls, etc.. Class Wizard and dialog control properties, the way it was in DevStudio '98 (pop-up tabbed dialog boxen) was MUCH easier, especially for dialog boxes.
Anyway, I've always liked the integrated debugger, having had to use CodeView before that, with dual monitors even. But I don't do C-pound nor ".Not" and so it's no wonder I didn't know the features were missing...
Icon, because this is all like "whoopeee" and "wheeee" without the exclamation points, bold text, nor capitalization.
I'd like to see a Supreme Court ruling on this one... just to see where it stands on privacy vs law enforcement encroachment. 4th and 5th ammendments to the constitution, to an originalist (like Trump's appointees) should be CLEAR on this one.
So what we need to see is whether the liberal and conservative halves of the Supreme Court are going to rule in favor of law enforcement enroachment in the name of "security", or whether they'll rule in favor of PRIVACY and FREEDOM.
It should be an interesting show, nonetheless. I suspect you'll see at least half of the libs siding with the ACLU, and most of the conservatives, unless there's some compelling national security issue to prevent it [which I suspect is NOT the case, hence redacted version at the least].
With all of the dirty shenanigans going on in the DOJ (in particular, the well known former top level people at the FBI and Attorney General's office) this should be a no-brainer slam dunk in favor of privacy, transparency, and public interest. Why the judge did NOT even allow the redacted version is beyond me...
it's also possible to study for an IQ test in order to improve your score... so think about THAT one.
and IQ tests are notoriously oriented towards college students. Some people even claim they're oriented towards particular "groups" of people, usually "identity politics" kinds of groups.
My IQ was actually unmeasurable when I was 6 years old. They were trying to force me to be drugged because I disrupted the class, being so bored, already knowing how to read at 2nd or 3rd grade level while in kindergarten, reading a 1st year medical book the family doctor gave me because it was cool and interesting, and I guess I was just "the nail" that stuck out, to be HAMMERED BACK INTO PLACE.
Needless to say, the family doctor and my mother insisted I get an IQ test, so the school did that, and I thought I was in trouble when the teacher showed me some Rorschach drawings, and of course one of them looked like a bat, and one of them I described as "cellular mitosis" (trying to impress with big words, typical 6 year old) and the teacher said "what?" and I explained, "see, that looks like the chromosomes dividing". Teacher left the room and I thought I was going to get into trouble. An interminable period of time later, some older guy started timing me solving 3 dimensional puzzles with blocks. Years later, I find out: my IQ was off the scale.
No @#$%^ this really happened.
But yeah I was held back for the remainder of my education, so that I'd be turned into a "bright lazy" (as my old college chem professor for 'honors chemistry' would say, kids so smart they never have to work hard, and get easily bored, and with the RITALIN NAZIS, end up addicted to speed) because, after all, THE NAIL THAT STICKS OUT GETS THE HAMMER, because, social justice, because, equalize outcomes, and most people are just TOO BUSY LIVING THEIR LIVES to notice, and kids don't know any better.
In any case, IQ is interesting but actual ACCOMPLISHMENTS, not academics nor IQ test results, need to be the measuring standard.
on a side note...
"the increase in the welfare budget has been increased spending on pensions."
Similar problem on this side of the pond. Solution: re-define what "retirement age" is to reflect people's ability to work and normal life expectancy. And make sure there's no "age discrimination".
Coming from someone who is getting close to that magic '65' (me), I do _NOT_ want to retire [I shall work until I am dead], and I believe it is high time that the retirement age is re-defined at 75 or 80, in rapidly incrementing steps - like 2 years per year. So next year, it's 67, then 69, then 71, then 73, and so on all the way up until it hits something more reasonable.
Because, when much of these austerity/retirement/social-security/whatever government payouts were conceived, the average age of humankind was *BELOW* the retirement age. yeah.
No WONDER it's getting so expensive!
how about 'goodbye blog sites' in general?
It has been possible for as long as there has been an internet for people to accidentally download "illegal" content, from kiddie-pr0n to terrorism stuff, on ANY web site that can be uploaded to, before the moderators have a chance to take it down.
If _INADVERTENTLY_ downloading such a thing results in PROSECUTION, the law has GONE TOO FAR.
atril seems to work for me, on POSIX systems anyway. I don't want to use evince on POSIX systems any more since (if I remember correctly) the last one I tried to install dragged in all of that MONO crap... I guess 'tomboy' wasn't enough, and the gnome 3 dweebs "decided" to use evince as a way of injecting MONO.
(e-vince does have a winders version and so I'll begrudgingly use THAT one until something better comes along)
A couple of years ago I bought a reconditioned box [to use for windowsy things] with 7 on it, and it had the adobe crapware PDF reader pre-installed. THE! DAMN! THING! INSISTED! ON! GETTING! MY! E-MAIL! ADDRESS! AND! MAKING! ME! LOG! IN! TO! READ! A! SIMPLE! PDF! FILE! and didn't stop IRRITATING me about it, either. What the *FEEL* is this SPYWARE doing on my computer? Well it got uninstalled...
one of the problems is that (after updating it) ".Not" insists on scheduling that background ".Not" pre-compiler / updater. It is *COMPELLED* to pre-compile all of that ".Not" crap your applications will *NEVAR* use. Oh they might call it an "optimizer". But seriously, it's ONE of the big reasons why ".Not" is "dot CRAP". And C-pound along with it.
Also keep in mind that if you aren't using any compression on your hard drive, that the CPU utilization for a disk-intensive process will be VERY low.
"after doing a detailed investigation, we got an excellent high availability IP/DHCP/DNS solution that plays well with everything and configured AD to use it"
well said! And yeah, this is in line with what I was saying and thinking at the time I wrote it...
Even a 'canned' WiFi AP solution for DNS and DHCP would work better, in my opinion. So you plug a WiFi AP into your network, to provide wifi. And then you configure DHCP and DNS on it. And then you configure your active directory stuff to USE THAT instead. And the problem with Micro-shaft's horrible DNS+DHCP solution "just goes away". Or use a commercial provider of a better overall solution in lieu of the WiFi AP, whatever.
people actually use windows server's DHCP ? I would think that MOST people would have the sense to use a Linux box for that, particularly an embedded system... as in a typical DSL or cable modem box, with a built-in wifi access point, firewall, DHCP, DNS gateway, and so on.
But that's probably why it's not until 2019 that such a vulnerability was even FOUND, with no reported 'in the wild' exploits for it.
It's more like "chances are, you do NOT" for using Micro-shaft's DHCP server on a windows server box.
ack on the 'launch the hack from there' - I figured Tor network at the very least, or the dozens of computers altready engaged in dictionary attacks against ssh.
A couple of defenses against that, worth mentioning:
a) disallow root logins
b) only enable specific users [that have guest-level] and require 'su' to root to do "anything"
c) forget passwords, certs only
d) use things like 'fail2ban' to reduce the total number of attempts, and keep a log [of sorts] of those who attempt to crack your ssh
this assumes you NEED SSH in the first place (otherwise, shut it off from teh intarwebs)
live VMs typically need config files and daily data snapshots copied to "something" and that's about it. if they break you just re-build them, restore the data, and move on.
And who said it was 100's of TERABYTES anyway? I would expect commercial solutions to already exist, even if it WERE 100's of terabytes.
lots of info out there about replication and using one of the mirrors to do your backups, re-sync after, periodically storing backups in an off-site archive of some kind. Also cloud backups. And so on.
the old windows 3.0 "Program Manager" might actually be BETTER than whatever eldritch abomination Micro-shaft has horked up and excreted in Win-10-nic... just sayin' at least I didn't have FRICKIN' TILES...
"Going back to 1990" is what they did with the 2D FLATTY McFLATFACE FLATSO look - similar to windows 1.0 even!!!
So yeah - 'not in a good way' when you look at the bigger picture.
File manager was ok though. It morphed into what you see in 'Explorer' as well as open source versions like nautilus and caja and konqueror and so on.
/me wants the old windows XP UI back, with all of the kernel updates and hardware compatibility found in Win-10-nic
Instead of using an old teletype, I'd suggest a modified VT100 terminal instead. Or something that looks like it, maybe?
in theory you could just hide the USB and video cables, and put appropriate hardware into appropriate places within a look-alike case...
teletypes are so 1960's, really. By the mid 1970s it was DECwriters and ASCII serial terminals, basically the standard for the PDP11 era.
hacker-space, or "maker space" (either one).
They should make this a periodic event, a "mini maker fair" using RPi, to promote the platform, AND the store. Include some educational stuff, 3D printers, some robotics thingies, and sensors - loads of sensors - and who knows what creative minds could accomplish...
intarweb miscreants... the cops won't believe they're guilty of anything unless they LOOK like criminals.
You know, how criminals have broken bones, missing teeth, large bruises, scrapes all over them as if they'd been thrown down a couple o' flights of stairs, or got dragged at 30+MPH over a gravel road...
"Yep, THAT GUY looks like a criminal!"
also reminds me of the way a thief on a ship might get treated, accidentally falls overboard and the guy wut dun it quietly whispers "man overboard..." then about 30 minutes later, "MAN OVERBOARD!"
Or another Navy guy I knew, back in the day, who liked to sing a parody of a 60's song, with words like this: "If I had a hammer, I'd smash your @#$%^'ing head in!"
I remember getting acceptable performance from Windows '95 on a 486 DX2 66Mhz with about 4Mb of RAM, a simple SVGA adaptor (with a VLB adaptor, though) and a reasonable IDE hard drive.
When I compare the *PERCEIVED* performance of THAT system, with respect to "responsiveness" (how fast does an application load) and the overall "UI Experience" and things of THAT nature, it
TOTALLY KICKS WIN-10-NIC's ASS!!!
/me points out that if effort towards a Java-script version of Win '95 were INSTEAD re-directed at projects like ReactOS, the world would be better off
(a shoutout topic to Nick Kew's post)
You don't have to go back 20 years for Microsoft to have done things that are 'utterly evil'. Look at what has been done to Windows. That was less than 5 years ago.
Sinofsky and Larson-Greene aren't there any more, and Ballmer isn't the CEO, but that doesn't change them. A new breed of arrogant "you will do it THIS way" types are STILL managing things, as evidenced by the fact that Windows 10 still has:
a) 2D FLATTY McFLATFACE FLATSO *FORCED* upon you, with NO user choice
b) Adware and Spyware built into the OS
c) Pay-to-play device driver signing ONLY
d) FORCED updates [complete with feature creep and NO QA], where YOUR BANDWIDTH belongs to THEM
e) NO other Windows OS available on new computers
f) Microsoft "cloudy" logon, to HELP TRACK YOU, EVERYWHERE
g) The [CR]app store UBER ALLES
h) NO listening to customer complaints and wants; they just listen to the 'yes' echos of the fanbois...
Yeah. They're still UTTERLY EVIL. The customer is NO LONGER "always right". It's "the minions are ALWAYS EXPLOITED".
But I think they were LESS EVIL 20 years ago. It used to be 'developers developers' back then... and it was just under 20 years ago that they came up with the ".Net Initiative" and it was at THAT point that they turned to the *DARK* *SIDE* of *WORLD* *DOMINATION*.
"cases where paid prioritization is in the consumer's best interests"
There SHOULD be 'paid prioritization'. Here is why:
a) as long as only a maximum number of packets can have paid prioritization, then nobody else will be 'crowded out'
b) paid prioritization raises revenue for the backbone, and would encourage more infrastructure to be produced with that revenue - "purchase OUR fast lane" competition even
c) paid prioritization exists eveywhere else, too. The store with the high prices that NOBODY goes to still stays in business, because its customers won't have to WAIT. So rich people go there. get it?
d) The _CLASS_ _ENVY_ "equal outcomes" crowd are driving the HATE towards those who PAY FOR FASTER TRAFFIC. Instead, millenial snowflakes need to SUCK IT UP and GET JOBS that PAY WELL ENOUGH to AFFORD IT. Then, THEY can have it, too.
There is NOTHING WRONG with "pay for better prioritization" so long as it does NOT crowd out the regular traffic. And by limiting it to a specific percentage of all traffic, on a given network, I doubt ANYBODY would notice, until overall speed starts increasing due to the additional revenue to the service providers results in better/fatter pipelines. Then we'll ALL see a benefit.
Yeah. Capitalism. it works. Just keep competition as a part of this, and we'll all be better off for it.
[but of course, the 'equal outcomes for all' socialist NINNIES want everyone to be EQUALLY MEDIOCRE, because it is NOT FAIR if one person has a slightly better something than the next guy, so it's all MARXIST THINKING driving this CLASS ENVY of NOT having PAID PRIORITIZATION]
well if all 32-bit support goes away, a lot of OLD computers could still be supported by individual distros, and of course 'build from source'.
On FreeBSD, 'build fro source' was pretty much the only option for quite a while. As I recall it takes the better part of a day on a 2.4Ghz quad core.
It's really not a problem so long as the code does not ASSUME 64-bit, at which point it would have to be patched...
(why 32-bit? it runs a tad bit faster, uses a bit less RAM, and is more compatible with older hardware. What's the harm of supporting it?)
ack - I *LIKE* the "last decade" UI!
double-ack on how foul ribbon and 2D FLATTY McFLATFACE FLATSO "creeping in"
I want a REAL menu, a REAL toolbar [that I can configure and remove if I want], and *NO* *FORNICATING* *FAT-FINGER-FRIENDLY HAMBURGER*
In other words, "last decade" for me.
If it worked, *WHY* *CHANGE* (and force EVERYONE to change?)
the difference between Amazon and 'Google + Facebook' is that neither Google NOR Facebook have a SHOPPING CART for a zillion sundry items...
To me this suggests that Amazon's business model is _COMPLETELY_ different than either Google or Facebook. Whatever that implies, right? (THAT discussion could easily go off into the weeds)
this is more an example of "governmetium at its worst" particularly when you look at the clueless assumptions being made; as an example, how can ANYONE determine copyrighted material over non-copyrighted material? It's as if the lawmakers assume that waving a magic wand or using an electronic crystal ball is enough. As any IT person to "come up with an algorithm that works" and I'm pretty sure that everyone will admit that it's "possible" but highly impractical.
But like magic encryption that has a magic back door that criminals could NEVER exploit, we NOW have magic algorithms for determining whether content is copyrighted.
Stupid, stupid, legislators.
Here's a thought: if you don't want your content indexed, put it into 'robots.txt'. I believe that Google actually HONORS THAT.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019