"his post seemed quite civil"
Fair point: happy to tweak that.
C.
3495 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Sep 2011
Yeah, we know the difference. Key thing is, abbreviation didn't fit nice in the headline space, which is the most important thing ever for us headline writers. The story is correct.
Now it's worked its way down the front page, where space isn't so limited, happy to switch it to the correct word.
Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot a problem.
C.
In case anyone thinks we're misreporting this, here's the quote from NASA (in the linked-to webpage):
"During their last year or so of life, the Van Allen Probes will continue to gather data on Earth's dynamic radiation belts. And their new, lower passes through Earth's atmosphere will also provide new insight into how oxygen in Earth's upper atmosphere can degrade satellite instruments — information that could help engineers design more resilient satellite instruments in the future."
C.
Your personal assistant is listening all the time for your wake word. As soon as it thinks you're talking to it, it's recording, and Amazon and (I believe) Google keep transcripts and audio snippets of these to further train their NN models. See Register passim
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/14/amazon_echo_recordings_murder_trial/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/24/alexa_recording_couple/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/23/amazon_police_case/
etc
C.
"such a wierdly terrible headline"
I was about to say welcome to the site, this is how we roll around here, a lot of it is tongue-in-cheek, unapologetically punny, etc etc... but you've posted more than 2,000 comments on our stories, so, er, what, this is the *first* Reg headline you've actually read in that time? ;-)
C.
"How is a DNS issue related to Century link (a telecom provider, and I guess colo too) ? Probably will never find out"
Microsoft uses CenturyLink as an internal DNS provider. It went down. From what I can gather, that meant internal systems relying on CL DNS couldn't work, which brought down various services.
How that triggered a script that deleted DBs is still beyond me.
C.
The means of infection are given in the article and linked-to post: Xbash uses three known vulnerabilities in Hadoop, Redis and ActiveMQ to hijack a machine and propagate.
* Hadoop YARN ResourceManager unauthenticated command execution, which was first disclosed in October 2016 and has no CVE number assigned.
* Redis arbitrary file write and remote command execution, which was first disclosed in October 2015 and has no CVE number assigned.
* ActiveMQ arbitrary file write vulnerability, CVE-2016-3088
The source is apparently here - caveat emptor:
https://github.com/h3ct0rjs/XBash-malware-files
C.
"I don't understand how you could tell me how the code will be affected."
We're not arguing that ABP will be affected - it will be affected. But uBO seemingly has a few features that ABP doesn't, and these may be stripped away totally by the API change. That's what we mean by uBO being harder hit.
"Stop trying to paint a narrative of 'Big bad Adblock Plus is OK since they are paid by Google', it's disingenuous at best."
It's not disingenuous: you have a potential conflict of interest. This is, I suspect but can't confirm, why ABP is so upset with us pointing out that other blockers are potentially worse off than ABP. You're not comfortable with people knowing about this Google relationship at a time when Google is adjusting its filtering APIs.
ABP's PR line is incoherent anyway. On the one hand, you're saying you're affected by this just as much as others - and uBO is so affected that it won't be able to function in future - and yet you're saying you'll make ABP work with Chrome if the changes are put in place.
You can't have it both ways.
Just my personal opinion.
C.
It's not going to hit ABP as much as other extensions. Our understanding is that ABP will be able to continue to some degree, while other extensions will take a big hit.
See our followup article:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/23/google_chrome_extension_change/
C.
Of course a drone isn't going to immediately outright "destroy" a plane. No one's claiming that. But it will be bad news to an engine if ingested. Or a windshield. It'll be expensive, and the airport doesn't want to be on the hook for the potential repair bill, the airline doesn't want to deal with the insurance and downtime, and of course, there's the safety aspect.
Other posters are sharing scientific studies. Here's an unscientific one - a bird going into an engine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE
Now imagine a metal and plastic drone, of unknown size, with a Li-on battery.
C.
"This article just shows a total lack of understanding by the author and by the originating source."
You haven't read nor understood the article(s) - the sisters are identical twins. Their DNA profile is 99.6% the same. Each test should have returned the same percentages for them.
C.
I am overjoyed that you consider El Reg (staff: ~40) on a par with multibillion-dollar corporation Microsoft (staff: ~130,000) in terms of resources.
As such, an email letting us know where we've screwed up is always appreciated, never mandatory. We do edit articles before publication and strive to check everything, but sadly not every blunder can be caught when we're trying to get everything out on an hourly basis.
Cheers
C.
Yeah, yeah, OK. We screwed that wording up. Should be obvious we meant 20,000th of Mercury's mass, but didn't make it clear enough. Sometimes fingers type the opposite of what's meant.
It's fixed. Please don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot a problem so it can be fixed immediately, rather than having to read every comment to see where we typo'd.
C.
We've just published a whole article accusing them of bungling a security patch. I think Reg readers are smart enough to see and appreciate the irony of a vendor claiming they take security seriously despite such findings. The juxtaposition is exquisite.
If you think the statement makes them look good, rather than uncaring and dismissive, then you need to dial up the cynicism just a little.
C.
As in, the full prime number, equals (2^n)-1 where n is the exponent that generates the prime. There are two numbers at play here: the prime number, calculated by (2^n)-1, and n, the exponent. 82,589,933 is not the prime number, it is the exponent that produces the final prime, which is what we were trying to drive at.
C.
FWIW - we've added a link to a Daily Mail article claiming the cops used an Israeli ground-based drone-finder to knock it out of the skies: a laser was used to find the thing, and then its signals were jammed, by the multimillion-pound equipment. Alleged, of course, because nothing's been confirmed yet.
C.
Forgive us, a number of us vultures are of that generation where we were taught metric but grew up around imperial. Thus, 120 metres means more to me than 390 feet, but 8000 ft means more to me than 2.4km. I weigh 76kg but i'm 6ft 2in. It's a mess.
And I'll sort out the units.
C.
Are you sure - the webpages are still up, and you can download the updates by hand if they're not in Microsoft Update.
Eg, for Windows 10 build 1809:
https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4483235
Windows 7 / 8:
https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4483187
C.
FWIW... 10nm v1 (Cannon Lake) is dead and buried. It was impossible to see it through to mass volume. The integrated GPU in the CL Core i3 was disabled because it didn't work.The metalization was not viable.
Sunny Cove is v2 of 10nm, after going back to the drawing board.
C.