QC Monte Carlo
It's a startup. Another one. Another in a long line of startups that somebody promises will change the world. Magic Leap, anyone ?
I'll believe it if they've actually accomplished something in 5 years' time.
18232 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Apr 2007
Methinks that NameCheap is going to be forced to clean up their act if they don't manage to do it on their own.
Now that they have been named and shamed by a government report, Kirkendall is not going to be bale to brush it off like an angry Twitter rant.
If you regularly host government scam sites, there's a good change the government is going to come and have a word with you.
They're still listed elsewhere, meaning that US investors can still buy shares if they absolutely want to.
Obviously, big holdings and such are going to want to set their records straight, but Joe Schmuck who bought 20 shares is not going to be bothered about all this.
Except that there are still El Reg readers who bank at TSB. WTF ?
TSB is not a joke now, TSB has been a joke for over two years, if not more.
Anyone with an ounce of sense should have gotten the hell out of there by now. Changing banks is not that difficult.
On the other hand, in the UK, there is the question of finding a bank that is actually reliable.
That may be an issue.
Almost disappointed. I think I would prefer listening to the actual recording.
Don't misunderstand me, this was another awesome video, but I would like to hear what is really happening, not just what NASA wants me to hear.
The untouched audio is reality. This is great, but I prefer reality.
As a freelance consultant, and a consultant for the past 25 years, I can vouch for the fact that 10% is an acceptable fee when someone is offering you a post somewhere.
And I'm talking about real work being done by a person through someone else's contacts.
If someone told me that I could have a contract somewhere but they were taking 30% I would laugh out loud and tell them to get stuffed. Yes, they have the contact, but I'm doing the work. I'm the one with the expenses.
In Apple's magic land, Apple believes it has the right to demand 30% of someone else's work which it is only just selling and reselling endlessly, having done nothing more than provide the platform to do so.
Come on. Apple is one of the companies in the world that has the most money in the bank. It's platform is proven and all it's doing is selling bytes. Bytes that someone else sweated to create. 5% is what Apple should be getting. Not a cent more.
Wondering about that as well. Wikipedia explains that philo-semitism is basically "an interest in, respect for and an appreciation of Jewish people, their history and the influence of Judaism".
Of course, associating that with antisemitism makes me think that whoever it was was dishing out racial hatred under the guise of good words.
I guess that's possible.
root
and execute arbitrary commands
Meaning, UK ISPs dictating what kit they are willing to pay for happens to be made in China.
I'm not sure Huawei is the issue here. To me, the issue is UK ISPs that did not put the money on the table to get secure kit. If that had been in the specs, Huawei or not, the Chinese would have had to deliver.
Yay for Single Point of Failure. Nice to know that the ol' buddy is still alive and kicking.
I think that, in the past few months, we've had largely enough demonstrations that UPSs should be quarantined far from actual servers.
In any case, whether you appreciate OVH's customers or not, I think OVH has done a fine job of openness and transparency on this issue. We are far from the usual "only a small number of customers have been impacted / we take customer data security very seriously / etc".
I'm hoping that OVH will publich a complete, official DR report with step-by-step instructions. As painful as this was for some, it is a priceless opportunity for all other datacenters to check against their own environment and start implementing mitigations now, before it's too late.
Because it has to do with personal revenue and that is generally considered private data ?
Are you ready to publicly post your yearly revenue ?
If not, that means that you wouldn't mind checking on other people's revenue, but you would mind people checking on yours.
In my book, that's called hypocrisy. Also, meddling in other people's business. There's a category of people who love doing that.
I don't need to know how much your earn, nor how much you pay in taxes. I do not consider that to be my business, there's an entire government branch that takes care of that.
As for my taxes, I pay them and that's all you need to know.
Any bank that uses today's pseudo-AI to process my money is a bank I am going to leave.
Numbers are not subject to interpretation. OCR is good enough for recognizing what's written on a check, and when the code gets the numbers, there is no fuzzy logic needed, nor any AI required to know what to do. It's done already. No bank is going to replace what works with something that might go wrong.
That is a stupid example.
Every time I hear that I get a headache.
Coding is not for the ignorant.
By definition, if you are coding, you are supposed to know what the hell you're dealing with. It is the user who doesn't need to know.
You are the coder. Okay, today you don't need to know Assembly language or the exact interface to the hardware, but if you're expecting MS Word to save your web page in the most concise and byte-preserving file size, I have a bridge to sell you.
Low-code is just another excuse for a gigabyte's worth of DLL files to be required to run your Hello World popup.
"Essentially, Dell's driver accepts system calls from any user or program on a machine; there are no security checks nor an access control list to see if the caller is sufficiently authorized or privileged "
No security checks, no ACL.
You tell me that there isn't a single rogue engineer that thought that wasn't a good idea.
I'm sorry, the end-of-life of a product should not be when the vendor is tired of supporting it, it should be when the last example of the model has ceased functioning.
Okay, one might argue about security and such, but in that case, the vendor should be required to provide an up-to-date model at bargain price to replace the model that is no longer secure.
It's time we stop allowing companies arbitrarily decide what they wish to support. You put it out there, you deal with it until nobody is using it anymore.
The only smart decision is to not connect it.
I want a screen, not an integrated streaming service.
If you want to give additional functionality fine, make a box that connects to the screen, but don't fuck with my screen.
This is something I really don't get. You can buy a stereo system in one block, or you can buy the amplifier, the CD reader, the radio reciever and the speakers of the quality you want all separately and connect them together and this has been the standard for the past fifty years.
If I buy a TV, I still need to be able to hook up the DVD player, an eventual BluRay player, and my good ol' VHS (yes, I still have one and it functions fine). Now, of course, I also need to hook up my ISP's TV box, otherwise I don't get the local channels. So what is the point in connecting the TV on top of all that ?
Yes, I know, money, but I don't see the point for me.
I have a Philips MatchLine Pixel Plus that has been working for two decades now. It looks pretty much like this. It's a beast. It takes two sturdy guys to move it, but it works flawlessly and the image quality is exceptional.
I'm hoping that it will hold out for a while longer because I just know that, when it dies, I'm in for a world of hurt finding a replacement that will not only give me the same or better image quality, but also respect my privacy.
And if it did, El Zuck had better not respond to any convocation to explain himself.
Contrary to US Congress, which he has brushed off and ignored more than once, I doubt China would be so accepting of his lies and would probably lock him up until changes were made.
One can always dream.
I completely agree with that argument.
Every single funny money scheme is just a blatant pyramid scam where the first in will have the most coins and hope that all the other idiots signing up will make the coin interesting enough that they can get rich off other people's stupidity.
Oh, and some criminals also use it because, apparently, a blockchain ledger is not enough for law enforcement to find out where the transaction goes.
Fail on all counts.
And so, uh course, dey wo'ked out which terminals wuz visible and began doin' similar wahtahmelluns t'de staff in de lab. Sheeeiit. "Sequences uh multiple inverse, non inverse and bell characters would create quite some stunnin' result," said Anne happily. Slap mah fro. Right On! De users – probably some little less happy. Slap mah fro. Right On!
De IT Managa' would be called but, plum as he arrived, de terminals would be set back t'no'mal. Den, plum as he tried t'leave, wahtahmelluns would go 'wrong' once mo'e. What it is, Mama. Right On! All it lacked wuz de Benny 'Sup, dudell soundtrack.
I'll bet they are - for Lambda School.
How is it legal to be able to arbitrairily exempt oneself from class-action lawsuits, or decide that the contract remains in force even in case of bankruptcy ? How is it that you get to decide that ?
On the subject of bankruptcy, check this out. It's an eye-opener.
AI does not exist. Not in the original, science-fiction view of a thinking machine.
What we have today are statistical analysis machines. Check out Google's free Machine Learning crash course. Especially this page, The terms used include "linear regression", and the repeated use of the word "median".
That's statistics. Not AI.
Which do not exist, either at scale or not.
The best we have working at normal atmospheric pressure requires -135°C.
There is one recently discovered that works at 15°C, but requires an atmospheric pressure equal to about the center of the Earth.
I'd like to see you replicate that in a phone charger pack-sized thingy.
More and more, I am seeing websites that have the popup contain two buttons : ont to accept all, in green (obviously), and one to check - in red.
Psychological wars aside, I am often surprised by a page that lists possible cookies in 3 sections : indispensable, operational and marketing - and often it's only the indispensable that is pre-allowed.
In other words, good behavior is spreading.
Of course, that may be a statistical quirk of the subset of websites that I visit vs the rest of them. YMMV.
"While the aim of the questions is noble, for users it can be annoying and can leave them preferring to hit the Accept All button rather than wading through what can sometimes be pages of options to turn off every setting, "
This problem is not new. It is the eternal issue of the fact that users invariably view a popup as an impediment to Get Stuff Done, so the knee-jerk reaction is to get rid of it the fastest way possible.
It is well known that users can click OK, Accept or whatever without even reading the text of the popup. They are even capable of spending more time making sure they get rid of said popup as fast as possible than they would reading it.
We cannot change, at least, not yet. Excel, Word & Outlook, not to mention Access, are way too engrained in our IT environment to allow for upsetting the boat.
Ironically, all the big names are doing their damndest to make change possible. Once everything is in The Cloud (TM), it'll be a cinch to ditch Windows and go for a more secure Linux environment.
So support The Cloud (TM) and we'll be able to kill Windows at some point in an undetermined future.
Wondering the same thing. This is the UK though, there isn't the same shark culture in the legal area, if I'm not mistaken.
In any case, it's hardly surprising that Google is fighting this tooth and nail. If this goes through it could cost Google an arm and a leg.
It would be a first though.