Apple assumes you'll toss the Watch after three years
Oh, I think they'll be doing it a /lot/ sooner than that; iWatch wearers aren't going to be able to resist the urge for /that/ long - they're /born/ tossers.
336 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Sep 2015
> rm is avalaible to all users. <
Well, that rather depends upon whether the BOFH has decided to make rm require privileges ordinary users don't have.
> Deleting stuff in the root directory does require root access. <
Unless you're in the 'wheel' group.
Or some other group that has been granted that privilege.
Or simply granted that privilege as an individual user for some incomprehensibly foolish reason.
Or, for some even less comprehensible reason 'rm' has been applied with a setuid/setgid on '/'.
Or, even less comprehensibly than even /that/, '/' has been shared via samba and your user has elevated privileges thanks to an administrative cockup - this /is/ samba we're talking about here.
> Isn't this a tech site? Don't ya'll know this sort of thing? <
Erm, I think that's the whole point of the joke - pretty obvious really (somebody already remarked upon it above).
Except, of course, for the 88%+* market share Windows users, who have no idea what we're talking about.
* I might be being a bit charitable in assigning 10% to Apple - but I think 2% is correct for Linux.
Firefox: almost usable as long as you don't overdo the addons - unfortunately, without the addons it's almost useless.
Internet Explorer: you won't just /think/ you've been fucked by a train.
Chrome: simply terrible but, even if it weren't, I'd still rather install Windows 10, turn on every slurping feature I can find, disable my firewall/antimalware and use Internet Explorer to visit sites known to deliver driveby nastiness of the kind that would make Satan himself blush.
Opera: the experience is so bad I'd rather use Chrome!
Vivaldi: my therapist says sitting in the dark and cutting myself would be less injurous to my psychoemotional wellbeing.
No, no, no, no, NO!!!
WHY do people insist on recommending this waste of time?
That's just locking the door after the burglars have long since made off with everything of value.
Never mind the pathetic SDC features, Cookie Monster stops them getting onto your system in the /first/ place.
You can set a default policy and then selectively modify it on a case by case basis: whitelist, accept from domain or (subdomain only), accept temporarily, accept session cookies, delete upon changing policy, delete upon refreshing page, delete upon leaving domain, delete upon exit, delete upon closing tab, view individual cookies/by site/by domain (or subdomain).
I have no affiliation with Cookie Monster in any way but it's the only cookie manager I would recommend - after NoScript and RequestPolicy. it's the first addon I install.
> mostly by people who don't use FB at all/regularly who never will
That's a big assumption you're making there.
I have no choice but to use it because one of my roles requires me promote myself and others. As a result I have a lot of people on my friendslist whom I've never met and, likely, never will. Some of them, however, are people I've met IRL and will meet again. Some of them are even real friends.
I don't use it personally any more though - no personal account activity only page/group administration and updates. And if it weren't for those I'd delete my account altogether: real friends can get in touch with me in other ways, as can compatriots/colleagues, clients and fans. Fans as a subgroup are made aware of my activities in other ways as well and, if it weren't for the tautological insistence by everyone that "But you've 'got' to be on FB to be successful," it would be completely unneccessary.
So, no, not everyone decrying Failbook has no experience of it - we do; we jsut don't want it /any more/.
is the use of artificial intelligence, or rather, throwing AI at people and hoping it impresses them."
Before you know it, half the people on your friendslist won't be real people and none of them will really be friends.
> those metalsmiths, accountants and security guards still need to be paid.
Yeah, but not by you or me - we take our hard-earned home at the end of the day and the only deductions we have to worry about are those taken by the taxman.*
* who doesn't pay those metalsmiths, accountants and security guards either.
you remember that you don't have to pay for the privilege of using cash, so why then would you want to pay for the electricity required to use bitcoin? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Furthermore, "most people get very excited about it and run around with a hammer thinking everything they see is a nail."
If all you have is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts to look like a thumb.
> In reality, it's hard to find good use cases for it.
Nail + head.
No, I'm not - I saw the writing on the wall a /long/ time ago and got out of /doing/ IT - I'm a consultant these days and get to go to interesting places and help people do stuff with IT instead.*
* audio/visual mostly - it's /loads/ more fun and it pays better too :D
> This whole thing reads like it was written by a person with a meth problem that some company put in charge of IT security. This guy needs to put the sentences in order before hitting submit instead of just frantic scatter shot "things that annoy me" tweets in paragraph form. Ironic that an IT security guy is complaining about unnecessary and cumbersome processes which add little value. <
This whole thing reads like it was written by one of the retards in Sales/Marketing - you know: the people who barely understand their /own/ jobs never mind the thing they're selling/marketing.
I look forward to the day when they're replaced by A.I.s - I only hope it happens before I die, so that I can witness their pitiful attempts to sell me their children's/mothers' kidneys for a drag on my cigarette.
Because the skiddies will be too young to have ever heard of it, let alone write code for it!
And any code they /could/ write wouldn't run on their 256bit backwardly incompatible .Net platform anyway.
"windowz xp? iz thatz 'droidz or applez appz, homez?"
You're a consumer, not a producer, aren't you?
Time is money in porn, as in every other commercial enterprise - the quicker you come up with the goods, so to speak, and get to the 'money shot', the less the producer has to pay for crew, electricity, the location, etc. and the quicker they can start the next production.
The rest can be made up with previously recorded material and/or cheaper 'actors' whose faces needn't be seen for the close-up gnarly.
So guys who come quickly are in demand, not guys who take forever to get the job done.
Especially if you use RequestPolicy/Continued.
7/10 times, allowing the cdn (and possibly the *static) is enough to see everything I need to - no need to enable /any/ scripts!
Chuck in DecentralEyes as well and you're sorted.
I'm taking some sort of adblocker and a cookie manager (like Cookie Monster and BetterPrivacy) for granted of course.
> Same here. When I install it, the first thing I do is clear the whitelist.
In fact, I seem to recall being surprised the first time I saw the whitelist prepopulated.
Which would seem to imply that:
ai) there was once a time when it wasn't.
aii) I am, therefore, an old bastard.
The thing about Conficker was that it didn't matter that you had autorun turned off, the fact that a call to the autorun routine had been made was enough for the payload to be launched.
So ... no ... we haven't.
> Laugh at the lame-o attempt to write a virus/trojan to a read-only filesystem
Get royally screwed after the next harmless USB device gets infected by opcodes that wrote themselves into the optical/usb contoller firmware this time. A good one will distribute itself across the firmware of /all/ onboard controllers to give itself room for more sophisticated routines - and lurk in your GPU registers too.
> Because I'm the Autocrat
Ah, I see.
Am I to take it that I won't make it across town without a cavity search and the USB key I have hidden in my rectum will be discovered then?
Any day of the week?
Any week of the year?
I suppose I might get away with it once only then, if you're using something like Red Star Linux.
However, what if I write the code, as I suggested, on my own machine, direct to my USB key and don't take it anywhere until the due time?
Then there's nothing /to/ intercept.
At least not until the day I travel (rather uncomfortably) across town.
Why would you sanitise it in the first place?
It's the source-code that you will subsequently feed into a whitespace compiler/interpreter that knows to expect code written in whitespace and won't, therefore, sanitise it but compile/interpret it.*
You then run the resultant binary (if one is necessary**) - which generates the desired 'plaintext' (so to speak) output.
It's only an n>1 party that would be likely to mistake it for a corrupted 'document' - you (and any other parties privy to it) know otherwise and won't make the mistake of doing anything else with it.
Or have I misunderstood the point you are making?
* assuming, of course, that there are no syntax errors.
** which, of course, it /wouldn't/ be, if it were being interpreted.
Oh, alright then:
C: Every time you make love to your girlfriend your penis points in a different direction but you don't notice until, one day, it points up your own arse.
C++: Because she's cool with it, you get to make love to both your girlfriend and her cousin. Unfortunately they both learned their love-making technique from their uncle and you end sporting an anus like the Japanese national flag.
VB: You proudly unveil your erection before your girlfriend. She says "It looks like you want to wee. Would you like help with weeing?"
ActiveX: Some bastard keeps making love to your girlfriend but you can never catch the fucker at it and don't know how to make him stop."
SQL: You want to make love to your girlfriend but, unfortunately, only one couple is allowed to make love at a time and you have to wait for the whole street to finish first. Afterwards you pretend it never happened and she pretends she was never committed anyway."
I read about some long-standing and popular service provider and think "Thank goodness I never signed up with them!"
They weren't offering https?*
And people signed up with them?
* at whatever was considered the most secure version at any given time, of whatever was considered the most secure protocol at any given time.
its the revenge of the tech support pit ponies who had to put up with inane-to-outright-insane-to-just-plain-rude support queries over the years - they realised just how vulnerable UK lusers are and are now getting some payback.
In fact, I foresee the development of ransomware that doesn't actually demand a ransom - it just fucks you up without offering even a glimmer of hope.
> If MS know in detail what caused the crash, why not just display that information on the screen at this point? <
Because Windows isn't a static collection of bugs - with time, some of them get fixed and new ones get introduced.
You might as well ask what the point of CSS is - why not just write the relevant code in individual pages?
Also, an enduser isn't going to be any the wiser to learn that the crash was caused by a segmentation fault in thread xxx of module yyy of weirdly named process zzz.
> If they don't know then the web page isn't going to be any help either (unless it's a problem which has only just been uncovered, since the last windows update). <
The QR code won't tell you what the problem is, it will just start an automated remote fix tailored to the unique device identified by the unique QR code.
The only time a user will read anything more than "Please wait while we try to fix your computer" will be when the message is "It's not /our/ fault, talk to your hardware/app vendor."
> You're obviously not a millennial. They love QR codes. They just scan those things all day long.
Find me a milennial with enough technical knowledge to know what a QR code is /for/ and I'll take this comment back - if they're 'scanning' [sic] them all day long, it's because they want to show their friends the 'sick' graffit they've been seeing all over the country.
> When trying out a recent Ubuntu I got
it to kernel panic what I deserved for running the *nix analogue of Windows.
There, ftfy. :P
Sorry - couldn't resist ;)
Seriously though, I'm not normally a distro basher - each to their own say I and it has its place - but, over the years, Ubuntu really has morphed into the lowest common denominator version of linux: fine for people who just want a free version of Windows but encouraging exactly the same kind of mentality that Windows does.
If you jusat want to turn it on and browse the interwebs/play a move/listen to some music/maybe do a little light graphical tinkering, it's perfectly okay, but, to achieve that, it has to take the same one-kitchen-sink-fits-all approach, so you can't expect it to offer the same degree of stability/reliability as your own hand-crafted install.
Tbh, I'm impressed it's as stable as it is under the circumstances and hats off to Canonical for achieving something that's nearly as good a consumer distro as Mint.
Couldn't be doing with it myself though: it's buggy, unstable and there's just no real facility to tweak and tune it to the degree I require - and there's /way/ too much bloat.
Each to their own but /I/ wouldn't touch it with /yours/. ;)