Re: "They looked for the password on the CD . . ."
"I once found a comprehensive list of login/password pairs written in sharpie on the underside of the leaves of a faux ficus"
Why were you looking there?
42420 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
It's not that computers will become indistinguishable from humans. In too many support centres the scripted humans are already indistinguishable from computers. Turning the job over to the computer is just the next logical step and will be undetectable to the hapless customer.
I hope the reviewers ( https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/18/first_annual_privacy_shield_review/ ) of the Privacy Figleaf are taking note of this decision. It indicates that the US legal system does not regard disclosure of PII as being a harm in itself but only as a possible facilitator of harm.
"I think that John is trusting readers of El Reg to draw the logical conclusion from the statement"
Sure we can. But that doesn't stop PR spouting the same self-serving crap every single time. I suspect they're simply saying it to get the statement on record to use in defence in any future court case. If they actually gave such a statement in court they'd be seriously challenged on cross-examination.
They really need to be challenged in the media as well. Tell them they're not being believed. Tell them their statement isn't going to be used at all unless they enlarge on how the events contradict the statement. Tell them that instead there'll be something like "We asked X for a statement but their response was so anodyne and bore so little relationship to events that we won't trouble you with having to read it because you won't believe it any way.".
"With the update to CCleaner, software should be included that totally removes all malware that could have been introduced by the infected versions"
Easier said than done. CCleaner phoned home to a server and that server would have supplied the real payload. It's not possible to determine what that was simply by looking at the rogue CCleaner. It's not even possible to be certain by looking at the server; even if the server is sufficiently accessible to determine what it's hosting now that might not be what it had before Talos investigated.
"your condescending attitude"
I don't find it condescending at all. In fact I find the attitude that I have to open up my browser to any Tom Dick and Harry's code that the site developer wants, simply in order to view the visual marvels that he (thinks) he's provided. Well, I'm not playing that game. NoScript is part of my security set-up and if anybody thinks they're important enough for me turn that off then I have to disagree.
"If people think of comp sci as a bit like doing a degree in botany, they might be more realistic."
Cough. My degree is in botany.
When I finally moved into IT after a good deal of lab computing and "if you want a program to do that, write it yourself" I ended up on a team consisting or a botanist, a zoologist, a geologist and a recent comp sci grad. The latter actually wanted to be an astronomer.
"Even funnier is that... HP"
Back in Windows 3 days there was a 3rd party package called New Wave which added a lot of the OO-type click to open with the right application stuff, etc. This, as I recall it, had a heap of little files which presumably did much the same thing as the registry did. A lot of that New Wave stuff got incorporated in W95 as could be seen by the copyright declarations.
The company who provided New Wave?..... You've guessed it.
"This will only be effective if it is forwarded to the nuclear deterrent targeting system."
No, just credit the recipient's account with an answering fee and charge it back to the originating caller/telco. The delivering telco (and any other in the chain) can add a fee of their own for handling it. It does away with the folding call centre company; their telcos just apply the necessary credit control or take the hit and learn by experience.
"Some developers / maintainers do care about backwards-compat, see the lengths Debian"
I've used Debian for many years. I also, however, remember libc6 undergoing radical changes (about the time of Linux kernel 2.6, I think) that broke previous application binaries. And if the application was commercial and no replacement was available -well, just too bad.
"Imagine a senior dev has left and he was partial to using Go for servers, node.js for UI, python for some algo, ZeroMQ plus numerous 3rd party github projects, the NoSQL flavor of the day."
A few days ago there was an article being somewhat snotty about enterprise architects. One role for the EA should be to make an informed choice of the technologies in use, minimising the uncontrolled dependencies and keeping up to date with them when they change.
"Over the years Struts versions have unsupported/broke features, plugins,"
Backward compatibility. Nobody cares about it. Except the users, of course.
I'm not familiar with Struts but a good policy, whether for free or commercial products, would be:
If the major version number is the same we'll ensure it's backwards compatible. If we have to break compatibility we'll update the major version number but maintain the last major number for X months/years or as long as practical.
From the users' point of view they can then choose who has the longest maintenance period, changes least often and best lives up to the policy They can also minimise the number of external dependencies.
"The only QUB teletype I ever used was at an Expo thing in the Botanic Gardens (or near it) and running a poker dice program."
I remember that. I think it was to mark 50 years of Stormont or something similar. IIRC it was in the new Stranmillis sports centre.
I used to use the old computer centre in University Square Mews. There was a punch room upstairs. Although during the day most of the machines were used by data entry staff keying in from coding sheets which was the most practical way of getting your first draft onto cards a lot of changes ended up being done in the evenings.
Even on the Teletype system FORTRAN had to be compiled from cards and the executable stored online - you just ran it from the Teletypes.
Kids today 0 they'd never believe it.
"Why did it get written as Apple ][ ?"
Marketing/Steve Jobs?
"I should have bought an S100 machine."
Another memory.
"It is to increase the price of advertising by claiming the adverts only go to people who might buy."
I'm not saying you're wrong but if everyone else sees adverts for stuff they've bought why don't the people who place the ads; and if they do, why don't they realise that this is happening to their ads and that they're paying for junk? Or do the people who place the ads not see them because use ad-blockers like the rest of us because ads are so annoying.
It's not only AI that fails to be self-aware.