Re: Sets = SuperBinder?
Office Binder in its Office 97 guise and couldn't get it working reliably
So, much like modern Microsoft software then?
6355 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Oct 2015
as there were NO support docs of any kind
Of course not. This *was* the 70's! Where anything to do with computers was mysterious and involved techo-geekology.
(My first computer was a Nascom-1. It arrived as a bag with a motherboard and lots and lots of components. ISTR that a lot of soldering was involved. I think I'm going to blame everythings that's happened since on inhaling lots of lead vapours in my teenage years..)
certs are still as secure and valid as they were yesterday
Secure - yes (possibly - if an organisation isn't organised enough to have people or processes checking for certificate expiry, it makes you wonder what else they have failed to do..). Valid - no. Let me explain the concept of an expiry date again..
I'll simply say that Emacs and vi are both terrible, and nano is the only decent Linux text editor.
Burn the heretic! The holy Vi should *never* be mentioned in the same sentance as the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Emacs[1]. Nano is all right though.
[1] It corrupts my soul to have even typed thaT evil name. I shall now repeat 500 :wq! commands until all is clean again.
ideal form factor for a phone is about 3.5"
Unless, of course, one is partially-sighted.. Yes, you can make things bigger but once you start losing most of the information off the screen it all becomes a tad pointless.
Yes, I could take my glasses off and hold the screen closer but then it's too close for stereoscopic vision..
Shouldn't that be: "Haruspices-reading outfit"?
After all, their "predictions" are about as accurate as telling the future from a flight of birds[1] or the state of a dead sheep's liver..
[1] "One for sorrow, two for joy, three for a girl and four for a boy".. Or, in ancient Rome, the flight of geese or eagles..
If the user does not exist, fail the login and that is it
You seem slightly slow of comprehension so I'll use small words:
A root user is created on every install but is marked as disabled and has no password. This has been the case for (pretty much) every version of OS X.
This bug comes about because of a logic flaw that makes the root account active, even if it doesn't have a password. This is unacceptable. But it sure as hell ain't "CREATING" a new user..
I have been hacked once due to a FTP bug in 2000
I've only been hacked once (that I know of!) - I set up an account on one of my linux boxes for one of my brothers and he changed his password to be the same as his user name..
Found someone busily trying (and failing) to install a rootkit the next day. Fortunately, it was a pretty stripped-down box and had a minimal attack surface (apart from squishy-meatbag induced ones).
Twice is enough.
Interestingly, I couldn't get the flaw to trigger on any of our AD-joined Macs (but could on ones that were not joined to the domain).
As other people have said, it would be nice if Apple were to spend less time carefully designing more emoticons and more doing basic QA.
Of cause we are, we need a trade deal post Brexit
Although, judging by the Orange Baboons' current conduct, that likelyhood[1] is getting less and less..
[1] Leaving aside the question of whether he can actually deliver on any promises that he's made - after all, his current track record isn't good.
What they care about is cost, and what they can do with their Internet connection.
Let me guess - you are fairly young. There are a *lot* of older people who don't care about such things - they just want to be able to pick up the phone and call someone. They see "the internet" if they have it as a necessary evil to be able to do email and (maybe) look at some websites. They didn't grow up with computers (let alone intenet) and just don't see things that way.
So why force them into something that is of no value to them and that they won't know how to use?
These days, we should be plugging our telephone handsets into our routers
Which of course, work really reliably if the power goes off..
There is a very good argument for keeping the POTS - it's (largely) independent of local power. Sure, you can use a UPS but how many people know what that is, let alone have one?
And yes, a lot of people have mobiles - but a lot of people don't. Or can't remember how to use or charge them..
Plugged 110V kit into 240V supply
We had a whole shipment of Trigem 386 (or maybe 486 - it was a fair while ago and some bottles of wine have been had since..) machines delivered to us with the power supply switch set to 110v (this was the days before autosensing PSUs).
We used to build the machines in tranches of 20 (unbox, cable up, flick bench power supply on). 20 almost simultaneous pops as 20 PSU units emitted the magic smoke. And 20 motherboards fried be oivervoltage leakage.
At least the supplier admitted their mistake and replaced the machines at their expense. We did add a "check power supply settings" to the workflow though.
thought that someone would buy a computer and use it to its advertised max potential
In the early 80's, we bought a set of mains-bourne intercom units for use at home (and up to Dad's greenhouse) from Radio Shack[1].
They kept failing - they would work reliably for about a week and then one (or more) of the units would fail and need to be replaced.
In the end, Dad asked for our money back. Shop manager tried to argue with us that they were failing "because you keep them plugged in all the time and they were not made for that". Dad pointed out the fallacy of selling intercoms that required you to go to the other end to ask someone to turn on the intercom before you could use the intercom..
All done in front of a fairly full shop. Money was refunded ASAP so as to not lose more business than they already had..
[1] Which was our first mistake. Every bit of electronics we bought from there seemed to fail after a couple of months. Stuff bought elsewhere was reliable..
A lot of our present military kit seems to be the exact reverse.
Hence Heinleins' comment about someone in a high-tech war outfit being finished off by being bashed over the head by a caveman while high-tech guy is trying to read the status indicators on their battlesuit..
I'm rather hoping that they will invade us to restore order and get rid of a dysfunctional government post-Brexit, as the Dutch did in 1688.
I think I'd rather prefer that it was the Norwegians and Danish like it was in the 900's (minus the looting, rape and pillage of course).
Bring back Danelaw!
They won't stop until they have ground you down into the ground, you are bankrupy, penniless, homeless and completely destitute. Then you won't be a target for their advertisers any longer.
Does not compute. Google don't want you penniless - they want you to carry on spending so that advertising and marketing companies carry on buying adverts and data from Google.
Google exists to make money. End of story. Like most large corporates, morals are discarded the moment that they interfere with the holy process of making money.
You very much are, indirectly, by questioning the credentials of someone trying to break up an important monopoly.
In your zeal to convict Google of everything, everywhere, you seem to have got a tad mono-focussed on the subject.
It's possible to hold the two opinions at the same time:
1) Google is bad
2) Oracle is also bad and trying to find any vulnerability in Google that they can (and there are plenty to find) because it suits their business objectives.
So, it's entirely possible to point out that Oracle is not accusing Google out of an overwhelming zeal to preserve the body politic but rather out of the desire to (possibly) deflect observation of their own dirty linen.
My take? A pox on both their houses. Both deserve more governmental and social oversight. Both deserve having their wings clipped (as do Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft etc etc etc) and some transparency applied to their actions and what they do with data about people.