Case In Point
Another attempt to mock the US political system falls flat, as it is clear that every government on the planet matches your description.
51 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Mar 2011
Your tasty prose is difficult with which to argue, but I will try:
The commenters who use phrases attempt to mock the USA's political structure are using the example of "regular democracies" incorrectly, by implying that the United States *is* a "democracy" ... ergo, they are misinformed. If the USA were being correctly compared to "regular democracies" (of which I challenge you to produce any example), then lumping all such institutions together might be useful, but it is not.
The USA is *not* a "democracy", even if such a notion is generally accepted as truth, and even if this particular exercise utilizes processes which can also be associated with true democracies, should any be discovered.
Therefore to use that misunderstanding of the nature of the political system as a weapon to mock the system is simply misinformed, and not a very smart insult. Kind of as if an American were to mock the British system as "a Monarchy". It's a misconception that does not get any more relevant with repetition.
The keyboard should behave like a keyboard. Period.
That means letting the user create typos because they pressed the wrong key, not assuming that a tiny slide of the finger is indicating the user's desire to cancel their keypress.
Just consider the number of times you type something and wish you could take back that last keypress because you hit the wrong key. In my case, it happens about once every 1,000 characters, and it's easily corrected within a second or two.
If normal keyboard behavior had been in effect, then the video would reflect 3 typos, as made by the typist, not 20 typos, 8 auto-corrected, that will take many more seconds to correct, providing the UI lets them be corrected and doesn't continue to introduce typos on his behalf.
While most Apple consumers might be too clumsy to hit the characters they intend to hit, most of the rest of the world doesn't have that particular developmental issue, or has the ability to recognize and repair their own fat-finger typos.
Its perfectly simple ... bad UI engineering. Period.
How did you resolve the dissolution between the meanings of the two terms which intentionally separate the two types of entities? Or do you figure that it really doesn't matter ... "The Internet", "an internet" ... same thing? No, they are not. Please revisit your style guide. This is not a personal preference issue.
A note to all of you "tech writers" out there ... including Mr. Thomson ... to pay attention to how the purported Father of the Internet uses capitalization when speaking of his child.
"Internet" = correct reference to the global network
"internet" = correct reference for a private, non-localized network, but INcorrect when referring to the global network that also contains such things as the World Wide Web.
Let's not get too lazy, tech writers. A clearly understandable future depends on our correctly using coined terms. Otherwise, there will become no difference between "The Internet" and "an internet", and we'll need to coin new terms to make the distinction.
Not much of a "wiping", now, is it? If the phone still functions AT ALL after being "wiped", then it wasn't "wiped". When I "wipe" a hard drive, I overwrite every disk cluster with 0s about 7 times. Now THAT's a "wipe". Anything less and data is recoverable ... ergo, the device has not been "wiped".
But maybe that's too simple for Apple to understand? Maybe they're still working to improve on the concept, and then patenting it, before integrating their innovative new "wiping" idea into iOS8?
Yesterday, a client asked me, "Do you do anything in The Cloud™"
When I informed them that "The Cloud™" was just a marketing term for any type of non-local service, and that, yes, I had been "doing things in The Cloud™" since 1976, they insisted that I must be mistaken. Surely "The Cloud™" was only rolled out a few months ago? Surely is is defined by services offered by Apple and Google?
Just another reminder that people really have no idea what is going on around them, and that it is extremely easy to baffle them with the bullsh*t.
Thin client, "The Cloud™", web mail, SaS, SAN, etc.etc.etc. All are variations on the same marketing push ... stuff that you don't need to install on your own box in order to use ... we'll manage it for you! Oh well ...
You'd think that a tech rag like El Reg would include the primary gigantic barrier to abuse that makes up the foundation of this program: The fact that registrants not only need to pony up large sums just to make their Registrar application, but that the applicants must demonstrate the ability and financial commitment to maintain the global custom registry in perpetuity.
Marriot can't just pay $185k and get ".hotel" to play with ... they pay $185k, PLUS guarantee technical and financial resources to establish, secure and maintain registry services for anyone who wants to register a ".hotel" domain ... FOREVER.
Just because Marriot is the ".hotel" registry maintainer doesn't mean that nobody else will get to use that gTLD ... EVERYbody else will get to use it ... and Marriot will need to support them technically and financially. And Marriot would need to provide proof of their capability to do so before their Registrar application could even be considered.
Abusers aren't going to get in at this level. They will get in where they always have gotten in ... by abusing existing registrar policies. Fearing abusive gTLD registrars is a giant leap of paranoia that is simply not going to happen.
El Reg should include these little technical details. Of course, that makes the fear factor less, and El Reg is fast becoming a fear-based magazine, so maybe this obvious protection mechanism was not even hinted at in the article intentionally?
Any application ... or any person, for that matter ... that can't convert megacycles to wavelength is a complete waste of oxygen! I can't even understand why you would want an app to do something that simple for you ... poor schooling, perhaps? Sheesh! Save the processing power for something difficult, why don't you?
The reason for connectivity is to improve management of the disease. The reason for wireless is for the patient's comfort and convenience.
Using a handheld device (not implanted), I take anywhere from 6 to 12 measurements of my blood's glucose level, each day. These implanted devices take measurements anywhere from once every 3 seconds to once every 3 minutes, or so.
That's a LOT of data points.
Using that data to chart a patient's glucose levels greatly improves the ability of both doctor and patient to visualize the progression of the disease and its treatment.
Manually entering into spreadsheets the thousands of data points produced by implanted devices between consultations and then producing graphs from that data is prohibitively labor-intensive. We're talking about many, many hours, even days, of going through points, one by one, and manually typing the figures on a keyboard.
Connectivity allows the use of vendor-supplied software to (a) gather the data points and then (b) create visualizations from that data. The handheld device I use includes infrared connectivity. Many others use Bluetooth (most popular) or some other protocol.
Attaching a cable to one of these implanted devices is extremely uncomfortable, akin to sticking a syringe into your belly/back and then having someone pull it to the side for 5-10 minutes while the device and the computer handshake and get down to work. You don't want to do that.
I do agree that security has been pretty much overlooked in these devices.
And to those of you who wonder what could go wrong ... what the risk is ... well, I guess you don't know any kids, or any assholes. Some people just like to hurt other people. They don't need a reason ... just the fact that it can be done, and that someone will absolutely be hurt by it, is enough.
ICANN regulates registrars, not domain owners.
As a registrar, VeriSign has certain rights and obligations. But to claim dominion over ALL .com domains, and to further claim that they have the right to disable ANY .com domain, regardless of its registrar, is wrong. They have NO authority over domains that are not registered through them.
If the police want to kill a domain, they need to go through that domain's registrar, just as the system demands. That domain's registrar, then, if warranted, takes down the domain ... not VeriSign.
Thank God ICANN was established so that VeriSign no longer controlled the registries, as they once did. Yet another example of GOOD governance in action.
So ... you fuddled around with Linux, continually trying newer and newer versions on your old hardware until you became fed up trying to cram all of that newness onto your old gear.
Then you got a BRAND NEW APPLE, and Linux never looked so bad?
How come you didn't get a BRAND NEW WHATEVER and install Linux onto it, just to see if your problems have been caused by your refusal to entertain the idea that BRAND NEW gear might work slightly better than your old, decaying hardware? You do realize that hardware breaks down, after awhile, and that new gear is constantly being improved and updated, don't you?
Your experiment proves nothing except that you prefer brand new gear over old gear.
Your argument is like saying, "I hated broccoli for years because it was never prepared correctly, and then someone served me some ice cream and it was head and shoulders better than broccoli, so that means that broccoli sucks and ice cream is good." Nonsensical, at best.
Most likely, Acer saw an opportunity to dump all of those Vista systems they had lying around the warehouse. There's simply no other reason to use that particular OS when there are so many other, far better OSs available. Fortunately, in the article updates the plan looks a bit more sensible, running Win7.
All your stats show is that mobile users who are attracted to whatever you are peddling tend to be iOS users, but certainly not overwhelmingly.
Perhaps you sell iOS accessories? If so, then you're doing quite poorly. Only 55% of your mobile users qualify to use your products. Better ad targeting is required if you want to improve your market share within your little niche.
You say that is not the scenario? Then at least you can see the point that your little niche does not necessarily represent the totality of mobile users in the same way that Nielsen's research does?
Well, then, just don't do anything that's "a pain", right? And, in the bargain, tell your clients that doing this most basic of security tasks is "a pain", but that "probably" nothing will happen, because, after all, executing an SQL injection attack is, coincidentally, also a bit of "a pain". Truly sad. One hopes you're not a professional ... because if you are, then you're giving a bad name to professionals. "A pain". Woot! Ridiculous.
You're an idiot. Obviously stupid, and lacking the basic means to think things through before shooting your mouth off.
In other news, several insulin pumps, like the one mentioned in the article, are able to send alerts wirelessly (via Bluetooth or wifi) to their paired receivers. The Omnipod, for example. It is a miniscule modification to include a wifi transmitter and a little software to specify recipients of alert notices via email/SMS/whatever.
What is most remarkable about this article are two things: (1) That the GOVERNMENT believes that a good way to spend your money is to develop a medical device that has already been developed for the most part by PRIVATE industry and (2) that they would allocate so much of your money (not my money ... I'm in the USA) to the task. I mean, almost everything about this device already exists in products available on the market right now. Does it really cost that much money to be able to include the NHS in the list of alert recipients? And why does the NHS need this info? Are they going to call an ambulance, or something?
This sounds a lot like yet another way to spend your money. After all, if they admit they don't need it, then they won't get any more of it, will they?
If all IT had to worry about was getting the right tool for the job at hand, that would be one thing. But that's not the problem, here.
If IT staff are allowed to do their jobs, which is to define the enterprise needs and satisfy them with the safest, most cost-effective gear and protocols, then that would be one thing.
But this story is about a CEO with no IT experience deciding on a whim that his entire enterprise should be run on devices that you can break into with a stick. The CEO is over-ruling the IT department's expertise because of his newly-acquired fanboi status.
And you want the CEO to win that fight. Silly Alienrat. Obviously you have no responsibilities for a network of any size. If you did, you should be fired. Just because the CEO thinks some piece of gear is cool does in no way make that piece of gear suitable for the task, or for the environment.
Most CEOs are stupid people who got where they are because they know how to suck up, not because of their enterprise computing experience. Stupid CEO decisions cost companies millions of dollars every day.
In this case, if the CEO were to be allowed to dictate what his IT department is tasked with supporting, then the CEO would be responsible for his company's network becoming compromised and possibly leaking his company's most sensitive data to some rival, leading to the destruction of the company.
And you can be sure that the IT department would get the blame.
Try and do the job before you mock someone who actually does the job, Alienrat.
This particular issue has nothing to do with the nature of LDAP and everything to do with Lion's problems within such a system.
The problem is that Lion is not requesting ANY authentication of the password. You can use any valid user name, and ANY password. Doesn't have to be a valid password, or even a password included in the system.
That's a pretty big problem for Apple, and no problem at all for LDAP.
Your Physics World link reveals a very different picture than Orlowski does in this El Reg article.
Specifically this little bit:
"Describing their findings in this week's Nature, the team has also found that our current understanding of the chemistry of these aerosols is inadequate and that manmade pollution could have a larger role in their formation than previously thought."
Note: "...manmade pollution could have a larger role in their formation than previously thought."
That is, humans could be doing even MORE damage to the climate than previously thought, based on the CLOUD team's interpretation of the data they observed.
So, for those of you who are taking this El Reg article's interpretation of the CLOUD paper as some sort of "proof" that the paper puts the onus for climate change on solar activity, you should quiet down and read the paper for yourself. Clearly its interpretation is up to the reader.
"Hey, take that bit about me out of your index, Google!"
"Gladly! Please provide proof that the entry is, in fact, about you."
"Umm ... I have a utility bill from 1998 with that address on it, will that do?"
"Ummm ... no."
In addition to the above-mentioned serious issue with any plan to remove specific info from a search index ... the simple fact that the info is online in the first place says "FIND ME!!" Spain put that info online TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BE FOUND EASILY (otherwise they would have just kept the paper version.) Keeping Google from spidering the info just means that it's not AS easy to find ... it's still there, it's still accessible to anyone who wants to find it, it's still PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Whenever government types start bleating about what they are going to force the Internet to do, start looking around for a comfy seat and a large box of popcorn. It's going to get crazier and less rational before it gets better.
You have, indeed, missed the point.
This particular exploit is made possible by the nature of one the security protocols Apple gear use to exchange credentials within a LAN.
This protocol is only in use on Apple gear, and is proprietary to them.
When any system within a Mac-oriented LAN is compromised, the next domain controller connection made using that protocol reveals EVERY credential associated with that controller/server, allowing the compromised machine to capture and relay all of those credentials, or simply to incorporate them into whatever malicious payload is waiting on the compromised machine.
This doesn't happen with Windows-based LANs, or with Posix (absent OSX) LANs because none of them use that protocol. Only Apple gear is susceptible.
I had a tech guy ask me once about how cinematographers were able to take film of computer monitor screens without the moire pattern (slowly sweeping horizontal lines caused by the intersection between the projection device's scanning frequency and the recording device's scanning frequency). (This was before filters became available to do this.)
I replied that ... cinematographers did NOT shoot the monitor screens ... they shot the full frame, and then post-production filled in what ended up on the monitor using masking techniques, replacing whatever was on the screen with whatever the director/screenwriter needed.
He was incredulous. Simply could not believe that cinematographers were not shooting actual computer activity. So I asked him ... "Do you really think that Sandra Bullock was hacking The 'Net? Or that Hugh Jackman was actually breaking into DoD systems while cameras rolled?"
He still couldn't believe that those actors did NOT do the actual computing. Sheesh. I guess that explains the Republicans' success ...
"Since when do you wait for a server to contact your Mac?"
Surely you are aware of the concept of "push"? Whereby (as noted in the article and throughout history) a server "pushes" things to receptive clients? For instance, when OSX Server "pushes" updates out to the clients attached to its network?
Surely, then, you must be capable of understanding the idea that a Mac client on a LAN is ALWAYS "waiting" for the OSX Server that acts as Master Domain Controller on that particular network to reach out and "push" software updates onto it?
If you (a) are not aware of this concept or (b) do not understand its implications, then, sir, you should refrain from posting such drivel. Here's hoping that your AWESOME 300 Mac environment is NOT suffering under your clueless administration ...
puTTY is a telnet/SSH client, in additional being an xterm terminal emulator. The poster was obviously referring to a tool that many sysadmins use to manage Linux boxen remotely from within a variety of operating systems, almost all of which have practically useless "console" applications.
But you're one of those guys who just likes to correct people.
Oh ... and it's NOT "Putty" ... it's "puTTY".
Like it's not "pedANT" ... it's "pedant".
You are implying that because the Lucas enterprise's valuation was noted during the article that somehow it has a bearing on the damages award. Please explain your implied connection.
Do you mean that if Lucas enterprise were valued lower, then the award would have been lower? Or that if Lucas had no enterprise to value then he would not have been awarded anything at all?
Or are you saying that the justice system is messed up, in some way, due to the valuation of Lucas' enterprise?
And your evidence for this is a damages award that has now been overturned ... leading you to decry American justice as a practice that once rewarded Lucas, but has now stripped him of that reward, and is therefore ... righteous? Or not righteous, due to the reversal?
You also imply that Ainsworth in some way "deserved" to sell what he calls "replicas", but which are actually no less "official" than the units used in the films.
Please explain why you think that an artisan employed under contract by Lucas for the express purpose of manufacturing costumes for a film series is now entitled to continue producing costumes for personal gain, identical to and in direct competition with those costumes produced for retail sale by the Lucas enterprise under its own copyright, and using the molds and materials Lucas owns the exclusive intellectual property rights to.
You seem to be advocating for any worker in a production line to produce and sell the product that comes off that production line for their own benefit, and at the expense of the company that actually owns and operates that production line.
Strange sense of "justice", you have there.
I can remember when the only reason to use a Mac was because of Adobe products that were optimized for its architecture. Graphics and other display production professionals proved repeatedly that working Adobe programs was much smoother and faster on Macs.
These days, Apple and Adobe aren't even speaking to each other. Do they not recognize what once made them special?
Without a special relationship with Apple, Adobe products are ... meh ... one can get virtually all of their functionality for less cost (even free), and their performance is average on any system. The alternatives' performance on the same machines is typically stellar.
Without a special relationship with Adobe, Apple computer products are ... meh ... shiny and expensive, sure, but if one wishes to find better, more capable systems, they are easy to locate and typically orders of magnitude less expensive. (Of course, brain-deads need not apply ... sorry, but you're stuck with what Brother Jobs and Preacher Ballmer allocate to you. We welcome you, when you decide to take your fate into your own hands!)
It's sad when once-friendly entities get too big for their britches, and start slashing at each others' throats.
Try as I might, I can find no value in this article. It's simply a whinefest against Google. There is no point. There is no news. There is no original opinion. Thanks for another anti-Google clone "journalist", Cade. Sooner or later, you just might succeed in making over El Reg in your own image.
(paper) Cash has serial numbers. When it's stored in banks, those serial numbers are noted. If one notes the serial numbers on their own (paper) cash, then that becomes an element that could be used to trace the stolen product. Bitcoins are not like cash. They're more like your own private little language ... fascinating to build, fun to use with your friends, and absolutely ridiculous to anyone not included in the exercise.
In order to determine the legality of the kid's purchases from Foxconn, there needs to be a bit more info about that deal in the public sphere. Nobody else but YOU has such info?!? Post a link explaining why you believe the deal is illegal or figure out how to keep your mouth shut until you have some facts at your fingertips.
Licensing. Not only do the JPEG formats include patentable tech held by third parties, but all of the JPEG formats are "owned" by the Joint Photographic Experts Group itself, and we simply are "allowed" to be use those formats until the JPEG decides that they no longer wish to "allow" that (like Compuserve and Unisys did with the GIF format back in 1995 and like Larry Ellison over at Oracle is doing with Java and MySQL, for example.)
Yeah ... cute comment.
What if ... the cops confiscate your phone during a traffic stop (because "reasonable suspicion" is something you have to prove in court, not on the street), read its contents, and throw you in jail? Keep in mind that they don't need to tell you anything about why you are being thrown in jail ... at least, not anything that makes sense.
Oh, that's right ... since the data is inaccurate, that would never happen. Laughs all around.
All cops know this, and when they impound your phone, then your body, I guess it's okay, because the data's inaccurate.
And, anyway, what's a night or three in jail? Pfft. Nobody would be inconvenienced by that, would they?
I mean, the data's inaccurate, so any police experience involving said data would be, at most, a minor inconvenience.
Certainly you would understand that, because the data is inaccurate, they couldn't KEEP you in jail, right? I mean, they can only keep you there for, at most, 72 hours, right? Who cares about that? Hardly an inconvenience, at all!
"But, officer ... the data's inaccurate!"
Clearly not a problem for the poor sod being hauled off the jail and having to spend several thousand dollars on attorneys and wasted time trying to get the hell out of jail and get their phone back.
There is no such thing as a (your words) "perfect witness" ... but there are plenty of reasons to haul your butt into jail and let you sort it out at your own expense.
This database includes a proven tool for doing just that.
Laughs all around.
Microsoft's sin was requiring onerous agreements with OEMs and retail outlets who wished to have the ability to sell gear with Microsoft OS installed. Those agreements forbade those who signed them from offering other operating systems, among other ridiculous orders.
Apple, while irritating and stupid, do not have similar agreements. They only have their own little world, and you can play in it, or not, as you wish.
Better bone up on web technologies, dude. You're "logic" fails in many places, but it was nice of you to offer an apology for Apple, even if it doesn't make any real world sense.
Nice try, though. Better luck, next time.
"The web introduced a powerful way to discover new content: the hyperlink."
Not so ... Vannevar Bush first described the "hyperlink" meme back in 1945, and Ted Nelson coined the term "hyperlink" in the late 1960s. By the time TBL published his first concepts for the "web" in 1989, "hyperlink" was a well-accepted convention. So the corrected sentence would read:
"The web utilises a powerful way to discover new content: the hyperlink."
As an employee of a law firm, I can verify that documents submitted for filing with the courts are under strict regulations with regard to typeface size and style, in addition to margin widths, document length, and even extending to line-height and number of lines allowed per page. If Apple lawyers made inappropriate choices with regard to these elements, then Microsoft is correct to point them out to the court, and the court would be obliged to either dismiss Apple's documents outright or require resubmission of same with the accepted formatting. Every lawyer doing business before a court knows, or should know, what it's document filing requirements are.