On reading up on ReFS, I am of the opinion that it is a step in the right direction, but has been released before it's ready. The version included with Server 2012 (and subsequent versions so far) doesn't include a whole raft of technologies that are (and have been for a looong time) present in NTFS.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no NTFS fanboy, but the majority of the features that they failed to include are ones that are practically indispensable in a range of settings. Whilst I could concur that, with the advent of (compared to a few years ago) cheap storage, NTFS compression has essentially had its day, other features are not so easy to do without. If you're a company that uses (out of necessity) legacy software with a need for 8.3 filenames, you can't use ReFS to host your data. If you need to use EFS, you're SOL. And to design a file-system with such a limited feature-set and release it, then say that it is ideal for using in a file server situation when it doesn't even support QUOTAS? Yes, I know, you can get third party COTS packages to handle that, but why bother if it's already in NTFS?
Frankly, one of the most laughable things to me is that they release this new file system designed to heal itself, but leave out so many features that THEIR OWN OS can't even be installed on it (no hard-links, for a start).
I do, however, go back to my original sentence.... ReFS is a step in the right direction, but is essentially useless in many (most) scenarios until it gets the features that we have largely come to rely on. IMHO, despite MS's claims to the contrary, it's not even file-share ready. The only environment I would even consider this to have a place in its current incarnation is in a tiny-business or home server environment in those frightening (but thankfully rare) cases where hardware RAID is out of the question. Even then, however, it could only be used to store the file shares. No chance of putting your Exchange/Sharepoint/SQL on it. But why bother, when you can just as easily use NTFS?
Not a rail guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I was always under the impression that the units in a train, maglev or conventional, were called "carriages". Based on this assumption, "cars" would be an abbreviation of this that has fallen into colloquial usage, rather than a formally "correct" term for them.
As stated though, that's just the impression I was under, so I could be miles off-base here...
It's even worse than that, when you consider that (as stated in TFA) Apple sold them separately, too! How do you show the store clerk the S/N of the iPhone the charger came with, when it was purchased as a standalone, after-market accessory?
Professional licensing bodies for doctors, anesthesiologists, etc. deem capital punishment, or any involvement with it (even just in an advisory capacity) as unethical. i.e. Not only can the medical professions not be involved in administering the fatal cocktails, they can't be involved in anything directly leading up to it, either. As a result, the people carrying out executions don't have the knowledge/skills to do what you are proposing. The only way around this would be if the state/govt were to hire someone straight out of med-school before they'd built a career around the training they'd just spent their family's life savings on obtaining and promised to pay them a salary comparable to what a doctor would earn for a full years' work, despite their only performing a handful of executions a year. They would need to pay so much because anyone who accepted this offer can essentially kiss goodbye to ever working in the medical profession (which was probably their intention in going to med-school in the first place). Even then I doubt there would be many who would take them up on the offer.
You then have the further problem that the pharmaceuticals they had been trained to use would not be available to them for use in executions, rendering all that training essentially worthless.
tl/dr: It boils down to 2 things:
1) The medical professions won't let their members be involved
2) The (mainly European) pharmaceutical companies won't let their products be involved
Except that, in this day and age where you have to practically give everything short of your inside leg measurement in order to register on many websites, once a miscreant has your password, they not only have the ability to use the site with the same level of access that you have, they can also bring up the account details for your login and gain access to a trove of information that most users forget that they had to enter on initial registration. ID Theft is on the rise, and any suggestion that we should be lowering complexity requirements for passwords used for websites that hold any personally identifiable information is, frankly, ludicrous.
Of course, there is an even more valid argument that websites should not (in nearly all cases) be asking for anywhere near as much personally identifiable information as they do. Sure, you can just type in any old bullshit most of the time (it's not like most of them can verify it) but why should you have to?
The solution is wider adoption of unified identity systems like OpenID...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an article here in the last couple of days discussing an issue with the security of exactly this system (OpenID)??
The trick is to carry around a card with your passwords on it, but then append a short (about 6 character) addition that's easy for you to remember. That way you only have to remember the short phrase and you're protected in case u lose your wallet...
Protected from anyone else getting into your accounts, yes. Protected from being denied access to your accounts because you only know part of the passwords, not so much! It's then up to you to determine which is the lesser of two evils.
Wrong!
If Microsoft didn't patch IE, most Windows users would just keep on using it. They would only switch browser if:
1) They were aware of the pros / cons of the alternatives
2) IE didn't work on a site that they really want / need
3) Actually knew about the security risks, and gave a damn about not being part of them problem
To suggest otherwise would be to credit the majority of them with far more knowledge than they possess (not that they need it).
True, but when did those pop-ups start to appear? Only a few weeks before EOL, IIRC, so not really giving much notice to home/SMB users.
That being said, it has been in the press for a while now, but again, how many home/SMB users look at the technology articles.
It could be argued that Microsoft missed a trick in their as campaigns for 7/8 by not reinforcing XPs EOL, but would doing so have caused them to be criticised for trying to "scare" money out of folks?
For myself, this hasn't presented me with any issues, as I tend to try to keep up-to-date with all things technology related. The same is likely true of most others in corporate IT roles. I may be wrong in assuming that most outside of my field of expertise weren't aware of the impending EOL with enough notice to take the necessary action, but the post-EOL press seems, thus far at least, to support my assumption.
There is absolutely nothing that "touch" brings to the table that can't already be done with the tools we have: mouse, keyboard, and touch-pads/touch-pad mice.
No fullscreen/ touch browsers except IE? How is that Microsoft's fault? Surely that is a missed opportunity on the part of third-party developers? Or do they exist, but you just haven't found any yet?
They tried the desktop-specific app store. Remember the Marketplace? Don't remember it? Well, that's kinda the point. The Mac version worked because there ain't much boxed media available for Mac (relative to Windows), so you needed somewhere to go to get your software. Windows had a thriving ecosystem of sources for software, rendering an app store pretty much redundant. Having a single app store across all platforms, even if you segregate the apps according to their platform, breeds familiarity, allows for one upload / vetting process, allows for multi-platform apps to only need to be uploaded/ managed by devs in one place and probably several other advantages I can't think of without topping up my caffeine levels.
Why would anyone want a touchscreen laptop? How about multi-touch. For some things, a keyboard and mouse just can't compare to the efficiency of input that this brings. I accept various posters' points about smudges, however, and continue to live in hope that at some point, preferably in the not too distant future, manufacturers will bring a suitably cost-effective solution to the party.
And just how is this any different from the F/OSS alternative of installing any given distro and slapping your preferred window manager / dock / whatever on top? Sure, you pay for Windows, but there are paid-for Linux distros out there too!
Having tried both 8 & 8.1, I have to admit that even the "Modern" interface is starting to grow on me. Sure, I don't, so far, have a touch screen, but plenty of folks do, it's a not-iconceivable upgrade, and it remains mouse/ keyboard drivable. What stumps me, however, is why they used it for the new SERVER editions. In my experience, a touch screen is far less likely to be used in a server environment, so this approach is just nonsensical to me!
Not really my area of expertise, but wouldn't the ablation caused by focusing that much energy on a point on the asteroid essentially turn it into an incredibly massive, rather fast unguided missile?
I'm all for efficient use of resources and energy, but surely this is one case where the most energy-efficient method has issues we could well do without?
In the course of their investigations, officials told Joseph they suspected he was responsible for a second anonymous Twitter account, @dchobbyist, which included tweets that are more racy about sexual encounters, escort services – and the inner workings of the State Department.
“Wow, you look amazingly sexy in this photo!” @dchobbyist posted on Oct. 5.
“That was him,” a person briefed on the probe told POLITICO.
Emphasis mine...
Methinks this might have been the answer to the question "what risk did he pose"...
Even if he wasn't responsible for @dchobbyist, their investigation of him in connection may have highlighted his identity as @natsecwonk, causing the focus of their investigation to move from "who is @dchobbyist?" (an investigation that perhaps was higher priority due to perceived security risk, but to which they have not announced any final conclusion), to "who is @natsecwonk?" (possibly not originally being investigated as it's more of a political risk than a security risk, but to which they now had the evidence for what they saw as a relatively quick and easy media coup). It would be interesting to see if they ever do announce the identity of @dchobbyist...?
Unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
And perhaps even more unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable also happened to be his employer!
"... biting the hand that feeds you" ringing any bells with him, you think?
Personal attacks on their appearance is crossing a line.
Not disagreeing with your opinion here, but there is ample precedent that making attacks against the appearance of people who are, however tangentially, in the public view is not only condoned, but in some sectors encouraged... just take a look at the front covers of (let alone what's inside) some of the trashier magazines at any newsstand and see comments about cellulite, fashion choices and other attacks of questionable morality. Again, I'm not saying it's right for these to be allowed / encouraged, but I also don't see them going anywhere soon!
I can't find a source that says that, amusingly enough. What I did find seems to point at an exemption made for "American-owned manufacturers who exclusively make electric vehicles". To me, this sounds tailored to actually pass. Anything broader and the TADA would jump in guns blazing saying how they're destroying America. They're already opposing the bill with such a ludicrously small scope, imagine if the American-owned restriction wasn't there or the electric restriction wasn't there? Texas happens to be both ultra-patriotic and an oil baron's paradise, what did you expect?
The only issue I can see with it as portrayed in the article is the difference between what is in the bill - "American-owned manufacturers who exclusively make electric vehicles" - and what perhaps should have been in the bill - "American-owned manufacturers who make exclusively electric vehicles".
A subtle difference, but the difference between a bill that could be argued is an exception solely for Tesla vs. one that could cover any manufacturer that have electric-only vehicles (possibly in addition to gasoline-powered or hybrid technologies). The bill, as described by the article (and that is important, as it's the journalist's reporting of the bill, not the full text of the bill itself) would apparently cease to apply to a company the moment they make something other than an electric-only vehicle. Potentially, it could even be considered to exclude Tesla from complying, as they not only make the vehicles, they make the chargers and spare parts too (letter of the law vs. spirit of the law)!
Besides, what's wrong with waiting an hour? You need to stop for food anyway, so if you can recharge at or near the place you stop to eat, then you're not losing any time.
That's true if you're going to a restaurant like Bob Evans or Steak 'n Shake. But I'd be surprised if the six minutes spent waiting for carry-out at a quick-service workaurant is near long enough to recharge the battery.
Good point, BUT...
You forget that with traditional gas refuelling, as well as 7-10 mins queueing up for your takeout, you also have to spend 3-5 mins standing next to your vehicle while the gas pumps into the tank... add the two together, and you're already more than halfway to that magic 20 minute timescale (which is only likely to get smaller as charger/battery tech improves... when was the last major improvement in gas refuelling timescales?!?)...
I do find it interesting how every one has ran with the Hindenburg angle, you've gotta hand it to Musk, he knows how to pervert a conversation with spurious propaganda. WTF has the Hindenburg got to do with fuel cells? - This is Musk doing a Tomas Edison, except it's uncool to electrocute elephants as "evidence" that a competing technology is dangerous these days, so he picks an unrelated human tragedy instead as "evidence".
Erm... Musk wasn't the one bringing up the Hindenburg. To be fair, the comparison was not (originally) invoked by the various commentators in this forum. I have watched the full video at the link. My understanding of the German language is slightly rusty, but Musk was only speaking in English anyway! Musk's criticism of Fuel Cell was based on comparing relative energy densities and efficiencies between projected Fuel Cell tech and current Li-Ion battery tech, with an afterthought suggesting that Fuel Cells are suitable for rocketry, but even then, rocket disasters were not even mentioned. He presented a marketing-speak case for why Fuel Cell tech is only proposed by companies for marketing reasons (which, in itself, is somewhat hypocritical!). That being said, the whisky salesman who introduced the video DID invoke the Hindenburg disaster. Maybe this is where some of the confusion is coming from?
Oh... who am I kidding...? This is/. where no-one reads the summary, let alone the linked article, much less listening to a nearly 40 minute multi-lingual clip!
Slashdot Mirror
On reading up on ReFS, I am of the opinion that it is a step in the right direction, but has been released before it's ready. The version included with Server 2012 (and subsequent versions so far) doesn't include a whole raft of technologies that are (and have been for a looong time) present in NTFS.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no NTFS fanboy, but the majority of the features that they failed to include are ones that are practically indispensable in a range of settings. Whilst I could concur that, with the advent of (compared to a few years ago) cheap storage, NTFS compression has essentially had its day, other features are not so easy to do without. If you're a company that uses (out of necessity) legacy software with a need for 8.3 filenames, you can't use ReFS to host your data. If you need to use EFS, you're SOL. And to design a file-system with such a limited feature-set and release it, then say that it is ideal for using in a file server situation when it doesn't even support QUOTAS? Yes, I know, you can get third party COTS packages to handle that, but why bother if it's already in NTFS?
Frankly, one of the most laughable things to me is that they release this new file system designed to heal itself, but leave out so many features that THEIR OWN OS can't even be installed on it (no hard-links, for a start).
I do, however, go back to my original sentence.... ReFS is a step in the right direction, but is essentially useless in many (most) scenarios until it gets the features that we have largely come to rely on. IMHO, despite MS's claims to the contrary, it's not even file-share ready. The only environment I would even consider this to have a place in its current incarnation is in a tiny-business or home server environment in those frightening (but thankfully rare) cases where hardware RAID is out of the question. Even then, however, it could only be used to store the file shares. No chance of putting your Exchange/Sharepoint/SQL on it. But why bother, when you can just as easily use NTFS?
Not a rail guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I was always under the impression that the units in a train, maglev or conventional, were called "carriages". Based on this assumption, "cars" would be an abbreviation of this that has fallen into colloquial usage, rather than a formally "correct" term for them.
As stated though, that's just the impression I was under, so I could be miles off-base here...
It's even worse than that, when you consider that (as stated in TFA) Apple sold them separately, too! How do you show the store clerk the S/N of the iPhone the charger came with, when it was purchased as a standalone, after-market accessory?
Answer is in TFA.
Professional licensing bodies for doctors, anesthesiologists, etc. deem capital punishment, or any involvement with it (even just in an advisory capacity) as unethical. i.e. Not only can the medical professions not be involved in administering the fatal cocktails, they can't be involved in anything directly leading up to it, either. As a result, the people carrying out executions don't have the knowledge/skills to do what you are proposing. The only way around this would be if the state/govt were to hire someone straight out of med-school before they'd built a career around the training they'd just spent their family's life savings on obtaining and promised to pay them a salary comparable to what a doctor would earn for a full years' work, despite their only performing a handful of executions a year. They would need to pay so much because anyone who accepted this offer can essentially kiss goodbye to ever working in the medical profession (which was probably their intention in going to med-school in the first place). Even then I doubt there would be many who would take them up on the offer.
You then have the further problem that the pharmaceuticals they had been trained to use would not be available to them for use in executions, rendering all that training essentially worthless.
tl/dr: It boils down to 2 things:
1) The medical professions won't let their members be involved
2) The (mainly European) pharmaceutical companies won't let their products be involved
Except that, in this day and age where you have to practically give everything short of your inside leg measurement in order to register on many websites, once a miscreant has your password, they not only have the ability to use the site with the same level of access that you have, they can also bring up the account details for your login and gain access to a trove of information that most users forget that they had to enter on initial registration. ID Theft is on the rise, and any suggestion that we should be lowering complexity requirements for passwords used for websites that hold any personally identifiable information is, frankly, ludicrous.
Of course, there is an even more valid argument that websites should not (in nearly all cases) be asking for anywhere near as much personally identifiable information as they do. Sure, you can just type in any old bullshit most of the time (it's not like most of them can verify it) but why should you have to?
The solution is wider adoption of unified identity systems like OpenID ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an article here in the last couple of days discussing an issue with the security of exactly this system (OpenID)??
The trick is to carry around a card with your passwords on it, but then append a short (about 6 character) addition that's easy for you to remember. That way you only have to remember the short phrase and you're protected in case u lose your wallet...
Protected from anyone else getting into your accounts, yes. Protected from being denied access to your accounts because you only know part of the passwords, not so much! It's then up to you to determine which is the lesser of two evils.
Wrong! If Microsoft didn't patch IE, most Windows users would just keep on using it. They would only switch browser if: 1) They were aware of the pros / cons of the alternatives 2) IE didn't work on a site that they really want / need 3) Actually knew about the security risks, and gave a damn about not being part of them problem To suggest otherwise would be to credit the majority of them with far more knowledge than they possess (not that they need it).
True, but when did those pop-ups start to appear? Only a few weeks before EOL, IIRC, so not really giving much notice to home/SMB users. That being said, it has been in the press for a while now, but again, how many home/SMB users look at the technology articles. It could be argued that Microsoft missed a trick in their as campaigns for 7/8 by not reinforcing XPs EOL, but would doing so have caused them to be criticised for trying to "scare" money out of folks? For myself, this hasn't presented me with any issues, as I tend to try to keep up-to-date with all things technology related. The same is likely true of most others in corporate IT roles. I may be wrong in assuming that most outside of my field of expertise weren't aware of the impending EOL with enough notice to take the necessary action, but the post-EOL press seems, thus far at least, to support my assumption.
Or, as I generally word it: "For every idiot-proof system, you will encounter at least one system-proof idiot"
There is absolutely nothing that "touch" brings to the table that can't already be done with the tools we have: mouse, keyboard, and touch-pads/touch-pad mice.
Multi-touch, perhaps?
No fullscreen/ touch browsers except IE? How is that Microsoft's fault? Surely that is a missed opportunity on the part of third-party developers? Or do they exist, but you just haven't found any yet?
They tried the desktop-specific app store. Remember the Marketplace? Don't remember it? Well, that's kinda the point. The Mac version worked because there ain't much boxed media available for Mac (relative to Windows), so you needed somewhere to go to get your software. Windows had a thriving ecosystem of sources for software, rendering an app store pretty much redundant. Having a single app store across all platforms, even if you segregate the apps according to their platform, breeds familiarity, allows for one upload / vetting process, allows for multi-platform apps to only need to be uploaded/ managed by devs in one place and probably several other advantages I can't think of without topping up my caffeine levels.
Why would anyone want a touchscreen laptop? How about multi-touch. For some things, a keyboard and mouse just can't compare to the efficiency of input that this brings. I accept various posters' points about smudges, however, and continue to live in hope that at some point, preferably in the not too distant future, manufacturers will bring a suitably cost-effective solution to the party.
And just how is this any different from the F/OSS alternative of installing any given distro and slapping your preferred window manager / dock / whatever on top? Sure, you pay for Windows, but there are paid-for Linux distros out there too!
Having tried both 8 & 8.1, I have to admit that even the "Modern" interface is starting to grow on me. Sure, I don't, so far, have a touch screen, but plenty of folks do, it's a not-iconceivable upgrade, and it remains mouse/ keyboard drivable. What stumps me, however, is why they used it for the new SERVER editions. In my experience, a touch screen is far less likely to be used in a server environment, so this approach is just nonsensical to me!
Not really my area of expertise, but wouldn't the ablation caused by focusing that much energy on a point on the asteroid essentially turn it into an incredibly massive, rather fast unguided missile?
I'm all for efficient use of resources and energy, but surely this is one case where the most energy-efficient method has issues we could well do without?
You can't be serious..? S.O. is full of monkeys...
Then, by virtue of the infinite monkeys theorem, the OP might actually get the kind of answer he needs!?!
In the course of their investigations, officials told Joseph they suspected he was responsible for a second anonymous Twitter account, @dchobbyist, which included tweets that are more racy about sexual encounters, escort services – and the inner workings of the State Department.
“Wow, you look amazingly sexy in this photo!” @dchobbyist posted on Oct. 5.
“That was him,” a person briefed on the probe told POLITICO.
Emphasis mine...
Methinks this might have been the answer to the question "what risk did he pose"...
Even if he wasn't responsible for @dchobbyist, their investigation of him in connection may have highlighted his identity as @natsecwonk, causing the focus of their investigation to move from "who is @dchobbyist?" (an investigation that perhaps was higher priority due to perceived security risk, but to which they have not announced any final conclusion), to "who is @natsecwonk?" (possibly not originally being investigated as it's more of a political risk than a security risk, but to which they now had the evidence for what they saw as a relatively quick and easy media coup). It would be interesting to see if they ever do announce the identity of @dchobbyist...?
Unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
And perhaps even more unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable also happened to be his employer!
"... biting the hand that feeds you" ringing any bells with him, you think?
Personal attacks on their appearance is crossing a line.
Not disagreeing with your opinion here, but there is ample precedent that making attacks against the appearance of people who are, however tangentially, in the public view is not only condoned, but in some sectors encouraged... just take a look at the front covers of (let alone what's inside) some of the trashier magazines at any newsstand and see comments about cellulite, fashion choices and other attacks of questionable morality. Again, I'm not saying it's right for these to be allowed / encouraged, but I also don't see them going anywhere soon!
2. I guess you have a LITERALLY foolproof way to keep people from doing something stupid?
This reminds me of one of my favorite aphorisms in the world of IT (or any other industry, for that matter):
For every idiot-proof system, there is at least one system-proof idiot.
Please note, this comment is supporting your challenge, not countering it!
I can't find a source that says that, amusingly enough. What I did find seems to point at an exemption made for "American-owned manufacturers who exclusively make electric vehicles". To me, this sounds tailored to actually pass. Anything broader and the TADA would jump in guns blazing saying how they're destroying America. They're already opposing the bill with such a ludicrously small scope, imagine if the American-owned restriction wasn't there or the electric restriction wasn't there? Texas happens to be both ultra-patriotic and an oil baron's paradise, what did you expect?
The only issue I can see with it as portrayed in the article is the difference between what is in the bill - "American-owned manufacturers who exclusively make electric vehicles" - and what perhaps should have been in the bill - "American-owned manufacturers who make exclusively electric vehicles".
A subtle difference, but the difference between a bill that could be argued is an exception solely for Tesla vs. one that could cover any manufacturer that have electric-only vehicles (possibly in addition to gasoline-powered or hybrid technologies). The bill, as described by the article (and that is important, as it's the journalist's reporting of the bill, not the full text of the bill itself) would apparently cease to apply to a company the moment they make something other than an electric-only vehicle. Potentially, it could even be considered to exclude Tesla from complying, as they not only make the vehicles, they make the chargers and spare parts too (letter of the law vs. spirit of the law)!
Besides, what's wrong with waiting an hour? You need to stop for food anyway, so if you can recharge at or near the place you stop to eat, then you're not losing any time.
That's true if you're going to a restaurant like Bob Evans or Steak 'n Shake. But I'd be surprised if the six minutes spent waiting for carry-out at a quick-service workaurant is near long enough to recharge the battery.
Good point, BUT... You forget that with traditional gas refuelling, as well as 7-10 mins queueing up for your takeout, you also have to spend 3-5 mins standing next to your vehicle while the gas pumps into the tank... add the two together, and you're already more than halfway to that magic 20 minute timescale (which is only likely to get smaller as charger/battery tech improves... when was the last major improvement in gas refuelling timescales?!?)...
I do find it interesting how every one has ran with the Hindenburg angle, you've gotta hand it to Musk, he knows how to pervert a conversation with spurious propaganda. WTF has the Hindenburg got to do with fuel cells? - This is Musk doing a Tomas Edison, except it's uncool to electrocute elephants as "evidence" that a competing technology is dangerous these days, so he picks an unrelated human tragedy instead as "evidence".
Erm... Musk wasn't the one bringing up the Hindenburg. To be fair, the comparison was not (originally) invoked by the various commentators in this forum. I have watched the full video at the link. My understanding of the German language is slightly rusty, but Musk was only speaking in English anyway! Musk's criticism of Fuel Cell was based on comparing relative energy densities and efficiencies between projected Fuel Cell tech and current Li-Ion battery tech, with an afterthought suggesting that Fuel Cells are suitable for rocketry, but even then, rocket disasters were not even mentioned. He presented a marketing-speak case for why Fuel Cell tech is only proposed by companies for marketing reasons (which, in itself, is somewhat hypocritical!). That being said, the whisky salesman who introduced the video DID invoke the Hindenburg disaster. Maybe this is where some of the confusion is coming from?
/. where no-one reads the summary, let alone the linked article, much less listening to a nearly 40 minute multi-lingual clip!
Oh... who am I kidding...? This is