Re: Do get used to it old chum.
Oh, so because the sodomy gangs are freely roving the streets I have to be happy about it ?
When something becomes a public menace, it has to be dealt with.
Now get off my lawn.
19430 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Apr 2007
As usual, NoScript FTW.
Javascript needs to die now, just like Flash. It is a nuisance, a stupid thing on 99% of the websites that use it, and an insult to HTML standards. The vast majority of websites that use Javascript do not actually need it anyway, it's just for making menus look nice and having a stupid slideshow on the home page. If HTML5 can take up that mantle, maybe we can start the process of ridding the Web of this malware-lugging donkey.
Ah, LinkedIn. What do you expect when security was the last bullet-point of discussion in the last meeting about specifications before coding this "social" monstrosity ? And it was punted to the meeting after beta, to be discussed when you had a product sucking the clueless in.
Security was never your focus, it's the add-on that you have to bolt on to the sides to make it seem worthy. Experience demonstrates that such an attitude fails regularly. And I don't see your new owner making the situation any better.
And your point is ?
Let's not get things mixed up. Said rock is going to be pushed into lunar orbit. If anything goes wrong, it'll impact the Moon, and everyone agrees that there is no life there, so no problem. Worst case scenario is we get to study a fresh impact crater with before and after data. Simulations will be excruciatingly precise.
If Mankind is supposed to survive, we are going to need space-mining experience and technology. We have the basic technology, we might as well start now before it is too late. And using the Moon to park our experiences is just common sense.
Um, sorry, but how can 4 emails stem from more than 4 "independent senders" ?
It is tiring to see how even the brightest can get pwned by marketspeak. Four emails sent by four different people - is that so hard to say ? Is it really necessary to try to make things sound even more important than they are ?
You've got a brain, you're speaking to people who should have a brain. KISS, people.
Of course, if you're trying to do email security research and use Gmail for that, it's an instant FAIL.
They're just angry that you said something negative about the Holy Linux, May The Bearded One Ever Keep It From The Unwashed Masses.
Each side has a cult, and neither can accept Real World Experience. It's always because you're too dumb, can't spell, can't read, can't "get it". Never because it's hard to grasp for beginners.
Personally, for every "expert" laying in on a newbie, I would dearly like to introduce them to a (mandatory) one-hour session with a karate black belt, 7th dan. The object of the lesson will be preparing for the black belt. You can guess the penalty for saying "it's not easy" . . .
The status quo only exists because there are umpteen million companies who's CEO and personnel have grown up on Windows and they are too scared to change - for many rather good reasons.
The new crop of IT users - today's yoof, have grown up on Android and iPhone, Google Docs and Twitter. Microsoft is nowhere in that set. And when they get to set up their own companies - and some of them will - I wager they will see zero benefit in signing up for an OS they don't know that cannot do any more than what Google Docs can.
That is why Microsoft is so desperately pushing Win 1 0. It's the last cartridge it has to stay relevant. MS must absolutely stay in the minds of as many as possible to forestall the day all new market deciders say "Microsoft ? Who that ?".
And I'm sure Vodaphone will - up to the amount those business users are paying for the service.
Hey guys, even when you pay you are subscribing to a service whose T&Cs specifically state that the suppler can change the conditions at any time. Don't act all surprised when the supplier of a service you don't even pay for is changing its conditions.
Of course, if you had an actual contract, this would not happen.
And that is the crux of the problem in just about any domain where politics are concerned. Yes, people will always state that they agree to whatever good-for-the-public movement is proposed to them, especially when listening to the arguments, but then they get home and plop down on the sofa in front of the Tube and from that point on the only thing they can still think of is order pizza delivery.
We truly have the society we deserve.
Yeah, I get it. But still, if the machine is compromised, then it doesn't really matter what happens after, the result is still your data is screwed, and maybe your bank account as well.
I worry about keeping my machine uncompromised. Once it becomes compromised, the details are unimportant to me. That machine is toast, period.
"Your ad blocker protects you from no malware"
Sorry, but you're patently wrong. When the ad is the malware, blocking it protects you from it, period. The fact that there are other means of infecting you "from the same page" does not mean that ad blockers are useless, it means that you need other means of protection. Such as NoScript. Oh, and a functional brain that doesn't let you click on all those attachments promising lewd pics from a link in zip file.
Not the part where Microsoft admits that one of it's products sucks - it's been doing that regularly, although not always so openly.
No, what must hurt is admitting that someone else is doing a better job for customer satisfaction. Of course, Microsoft doesn't give a flying monkey's about customer satisfaction any more (only just enough to be able to keep the telemetry on), but admitting it still must carry a heavy sting.
Well, each square meter facing the Sun, that is. Which is still 250,036,000 km2.
So that's 2,550,360,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons per second that are bouncing off Earth's surface.
Yikes.
The fact that a given memory technology is ten times faster than another is certainly not limited by the user's typing speed. It will just store each keypress ten times faster. Of course, the user will not notice any difference whatsoever.
Where the user will see a difference is when the user transfers a large block of data (or a large quantity of small blocks) to that memory. That is where the speed will be significant and where the notion of limiting factors will come into account, such as CPU power, number of threads allotted to the task and available bandwidth between the memory modules and the source/destination of the data.
If you're just waiting on user keyboard operations, a good ol' PC XT could do the job nicely.
I like Valve. I've always felt that Half-Life (the original) was the best computer AI ever developed. I love Steam. I feel it's the best software-vending platform in existence.
And now this. I am disappointed, Valve. Clean up your procedures, NOW. You're better than that.
WHAT ? There are Linux admins who have actually configured the oh-so-vaunted Linux server to accept external comms without authentication ? Count my gast flabbered. Must be ex-Windows admins.
In any case, the next time I view another condescending comment on lusers running Windows in admin mode, I will link to this article with relish.
That is the demonstration of the gap that exists between marketing and IT security. Marketing wants to be as friendly as possible and make things as easy as possible for the user, so sends all details, puts links in buttons and invents stupid names like HHonor that make people forget what a typo is.
The IT security comes in, sees all the stupidity and goes "That is too dumb to be real - avoid".
Inevitable, really.
I have one question : where is it stated that ABS required such protection in the specifications ?
IBM may well be a lumbering behemoth that whose right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, but from my experience its consultants are very procedural and tend to want to include absolutely everything in the specifications to max out all possible chances of revenue. To me, that means that it is very likely that IBM offered DOS protection measures, and ABS said no to the cost, so the measures were taken out of the offer before signature and go-ahead.
I simply cannot believe that IBM got handed the project and "forgot" to implement DOS protection measures. If IBM didn't implement it, I think it's because ABS said no. Probably because they thought the risk was insignificant ("who would DOS a census ?"). Now that the risk has revealed itself to be much more important, ABS wants to deflect the blame on the supplier. Typical coward's response.
So which is it ? Can somebody shed some light on this ?
ENISA has misunderstood the goal of these "studies". They are not made to explain an actual cost, they are made to push the hysterical fear agenda to scare punters into investing into security (any kind, doesn't matter as long the contract is in the tens of thousands) and therefor need to publish big numbers because that's more impressive than saying that a typical cybercrime will actually cost an admin a day/week of work to ferret out and lock down the affected parts.
Even if your admin is paid in gold bars, you won't hit a number that is anywhere near the million mark, so not impressive enough.
"Large software download sites are a hated web relic in infosec circles because security checks are often scanty, while bundler installation programs make direct efforts to trick their users into installing unwanted apps that increase PC attack surfaces."
Maybe they should have a word with CNet as well, eh ? I hate download wrappers. All of them.
Indeed it is not, because running a company is something totally different to what anyone does on a day-to-day basis.
The first big hurdle is to not confuse what you have on the company bank account with what your benefits are. The company can have cash ready and still be going bust.
The second just-as-important thing is not to confuse the company bank account with your money. That is a very quick road to failure.
But there are more insidious things, like being able to detect which costs are bringing your company down and which ones are helping support the business. You must remove the first without remorse and be prepared to take the latter. You generally have to spend money to make it, the trick is spending the right amount in the right ways. This is what generally kills startups in short order - and that's without even thinking about dot-com ones.
The idea came from science-fiction. It's not supposed to be feasible, it's supposed to be awesome. It is supposed to mean that the civilization that built it had so much more resources that they decided to do it for kicks. It's supposed to demonstrate just how powerful the civilization that built it is.
They wouldn't use up all the resources of the system that the star is in, they would use up five or six start systems - because they could. It's the hipster solution to energy gathering.
I am absolutely certain scientists have thought about this, but I can't help thinking that a nebula of varying thickness might be able to explain this.
Of course, I doubt we'd have any way of confirming that. Then again, we know that there is dust between us and the center of the galaxy, and we can still get images in certain wavelengths, so maybe they've already checked and there's no chance of a nebula lurking in that specific region.
Still, I think a nebula would be possible.
Your enthusiasm may be a bit premature. We're talking about whiteboard specifications, not production measurements. All the numbers are PR-driven and subject to verification with actual, real-world results.
We've been promised the moon before, many, many more times than we've ever gotten it.
A Federal judge has decided that it is now.
Interesting to see this go through after that decision.
There is nothing that is not awesome about it. The smallest thing requires freezing, burning and shaking before you can even get it on the enormous explodey stick ride to the sky.
If ever we get to the point where gravity modulators are common as pie, it will almost be a sad thing for the awesomeness of space. Almost.
Reasoning which holds up well until the catastrophe occurs and you see the bill for repairs. More often than not, you will then reevaluate your opinion of what "makes sense" as far as investments are concerned.
True story : at an important government-level organization I will not name further, there was a kerfluffle when a senior engineer warned, in writing, all the way up the hierarchy, that the currently-at-the-time PC upgrade process was an open invitation to virii and expensive downtime.
He was hauled into his managers' office for a right chewing out, which, being a senior engineer in a function from which nobody could oust him, he took with a verbal barrage of his own (likely containing many words such as "idiotic", "moronic", "abysmally stupid" etc - don't know, wasn't there, but I damn well hope so). Still, he was told that the investment "wasn't worth it" and that he should "stop making waves".
As fate would have it, the tsunami hit later that year. An outdated PC piloted by a nincompoop got infected, the infection spread to the servers, and everything was shut down for at least 3 days. That's over 500 people with no more PCs for 24 work hours. You do the math.
He did the math, and presented the cleanup bill with a scathing "I told you so" that, curiously, all the managers took quite meekly.
The PC upgrade schedule was changed after that. Unbelievable, ain't it ?
Is that supposed to be a joke ?
For an entire year, we were continually bashed over the head with how Windows 1 0 was free, how much faster it was, how much better it was, and how free it was. We were repeatedly told that existing kit would run better on it. Oh, and it was FREE.
Next to the marketing, MS tried absolutely everything to push it out whether you wanted it or not, including malware tactics.
With all of that, what should have happened is MS touting the fastest-ever adoption of a new OS version, and the almost-total conversion of all Windows PCs in existence.
Instead, it barely made a quarter of the market, and you're saying that is "especially well" ?
I hope you enjoy your check.
Which will be nothing next to the surprise of those morons buying these doomed-to-fail locks when they report a theft and their insurance says "um, sorry, but those BT locks are not approved and represent a security risk, so we're not going to pay for your stupidity".