I don't intrinsically mind my Netflix bill going up another buck or two a month; that's about in line with inflation when they started doing the streaming thing.
The bigger issue is that they're shifting, and while I get it, it's overall less compelling. They killed Blockbuster by allowing DVD rentals in the mail without any late fees. They pivoted toward streaming, because obviously that was the next logical step. Then, they started producing original content because it was starting to cost more in licensing to keep big-four movies in the list than it cost to produce their own, and with House of Cards and Orange Is The New Black turning out to be pretty popular, I certainly can't blame them for focusing more on original content than trying to license Hollywood blockbusters.
The problem is that as the third party content continues to wane, Netflix stops being Netflix and they end up just being the new HBO, while also competing with HBO, and Disney, and everyone else who wants a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
Now, there's enough good Netflix content across the spectrum for them to sustain an audience, and Netflix has already proven that they have a market for their original content.
The question is whether their original content is something most of their customers will be willing to pay more for, and while I think they are, I think that for Netflix to continue to grow as another-HBO-on-the-Internet, they're going to start to be doing it at the expense of the companies from whom they previously licensed content. It will be interesting whether Netflix starts beating Disney at their own game, or vice versa...because I submit that the lack of any Disney/Marvel/Star Wars content is going to be a bigger tell than a $2 rate hike.
I think if Microsoft was only forcing updates for critical security issues everybody would agree with you.
Precisely this. Security updates generally tend to be small and install quickly. Odds are pretty good that half of them can be installed transparently and without a reboot.
The problem tends to be the larger updates, especially the 'feature updates' that take hours to install in order to add features nobody asked for.
'Muh Securrity' isn't a justifiable reason why a recent round of updates basically told users their documents and other data would be uploaded to OneDrive by default.
Fellow Staples alum. We generally had the 60s/70s/80s soft rock sort of thing going on; I don't know artists or titles but I know the first ten seconds of every song to this day...
The funniest story I remember was one year on Back to School Wednesday (the day when all four local school districts got their BTS lists and every register did over $200,000 in pencils and folders...), our GM was cool and our BM guys knew how to plug in an iPod from the Muzak system, so she let us put on whatever we wanted once all the customers left. So, we put on Lewis Black. We had the highest gross sales in the district that day, so our district manager called the GM to congratulate her. We put her on hold to enable the call transfer, and then realized that ehm, we had some unique hold music...
I mean, maybe it is some sort of smear campaign...but...is it possible that it isn't?
I never followed the comic books. Captain Marvel has never been in any of the previous Marvel movies. For that matter, she has never even been mentioned, aside from the post credit sequence of Infinity War. "Who is this new person that's been sitting around during all the other world-ending things that took place over the past decade?", I ask myself? Meanwhile, Infinity War set up a massive cliffhanger. Chris Evans alluded to Captain America dying in Endgame. We know Captain Marvel isn't going to be the solution to that story line, and the Captain Marvel movie probably won't even make it to Blu-Ray before Endgame is released.
So, is it possible - just possible - that there *is* a reduced desire to see CM simply because of the shadow between the two Infinity War films? I'm just saying that not everything ever is related to Russian bots and sexism.
So you've seen it too? What did you think about the scene with the kittens and the meat grinder?
That one was just terrible.
The reason I was so conflicted about the first example was how eerily specific it was. 'Kittens in a meat grinder' is the sort of shock value that proves the GGP's point effectively and would have done the job. However, the example provided was scary with how detailed it was, which is the source of my internal conflict.
videos of pre-teen mothers feeding freshly plucked aborted foetuses from bottles of heroin with blazing pentagrams on them while being sodomized by German shepherds
I have so many highly conflicted feelings about this video...
Can you really show me A/B testing that shows it is 6 times better than the $10 mouse at Fry's? How about even twice as better as the $5? It's like selling $500 sneakers to aspiring pro athletes.
I can't speak for the 518 (though I know a few who swear by it), but I've got a Corsair Scimitar Pro, and yes, it's worth the $60 I paid for it. Being able to assign keystroke combinations, text entries, and macros to the different buttons has helped me do repetitive tasks far more quickly than if I got stuck doing them by hand, and some of them are the sorts of things that don't lend themselves to bash scripts. For example, once I had to add 100 users, their e-mail addresses, and their folder shares to three different Xerox copiers - the right combination of alt+tabs, ctrl+c, ctrl+v, tab, arrow keys, and delays meant I was able to do that in about 15 minutes per copier. Did I mention they don't require an account or any sort of data mining?
Yes, there are other things that enable running macros at a system level, but the mouse is well worth it for the functionality.
If this one is bundled into the same lawsuit, they'll probably lose.
SiliconDust's service requires:
1. HDHomeRun Hardware. 2. Active cable service. 3. A CableCARD. 4. A login. 5. Internet service. 6. A destination device.
It's basically a replacement for port forwarding - people using it still pay a cable bill. It's tough to use the Aereo case as an argument if users are paying for cable service as a prerequisite for using SD's offering, and if a login is intended to protect against mass sharing.
Is the government threatening DC with fines/jail time/threat of life if they publish it? Is there any county, state, or federal law preventing DC from publishing it? Is there any county, state, or federal law preventing retailers from selling it? If DC were to publish it and retailers were to sell it, and people were to cause quantifiable harm to either of them as a result, would the government fail to arrest those who caused that harm?
No, no, no, and no. Therefore, I can conclude that we do not, in fact, live in a theocracy.
What we have is DC making a decision about what they want to publish. Exercising their right to the freedom of the press as they are choosing to not-publish something is basically the antithesis of what a theocratic government would do.
I haven't looked forward to a game release in years. It's pretty simple...
-I don't game on my phone. -I don't want a game without a single player campaign (y'know, an actual campaign, not a 90-minute tutorial). -I don't want a game with lootboxes. -I don't want a game with microtransactions. -I don't want a game with an always-online requirement....So basically, 98% of new AAA games aren't written for me. And that's fine. I'm voting with my wallet; I've got green pastures of games in my Steam. Not everything has to be incredibly story driven or be some GPU workout, either. I have fun playing PinballFX and Sol Exodus, Game Dev Tycoon and Trine. I'm one of those people who still enjoys playing Unreal Tournament in all of its iterations - it's got the same concept as Destiny 2 ("Go to the place and shoot the lads"), but with far fewer annoyances, free DLC, and free multiplayer. And, of course, no matter how many times I play the Mass Effect trilogy (and even Andromeda), I come across a new thing somewhere.
I realize that saying "they don't make 'em like they used to" wreaks of nostalgia, but I preordered Andromeda, and on the sole basis that it was one of the last EA games that didn't wreak of microtransactions and lootboxes, I'd do it again if only to encourage that sort of model. Activision has the same problem - Starcraft isn't always my cup of tea, but when I'm in the mood, I'm happy with what it is, to the chagrin of Activision who would far rather I be a fan of CoD: BO4. I got that game for free and I still didn't find it to be fun at all, even though the first Black Ops game was one of my favorites of the series.
EA shifted their business model toward short term profits, and while it worked for a while, it's obvious to everybody with a brain stem that microtransactions and second-half-of-the-game DLC simply isn't going to garner loyalty in the long term. It's just that the chickens are finally coming home to roost, and while it's possible that they'll figure out what the rest of us already know, I wouldn't wager a counterfeit wooden nickel on it.
I don't mind the build quality of the BlackWidow keyboard I used to have. The USB cable wasn't too keen on the 90-degree bend I got stuck doing as a result of using it with a laptop, but the Cherry MX Blue keys were the selling point, and they were true to form.
I don't mind Synapse in isolation, but my big gripe about it is that it requires an account. It's not possible to create macros for the macro keys without an account for 'cloud syncing', and that wasn't terribly well stipulated before purchase...so I swiftly set the Windows Firewall to deny any-any from the Razer executables once the account was made; unsurprisingly it worked just fine in offline mode.
When I decided to do my macros on a mouse instead of a keyboard, I went with the Corsair MMO mouse; their iCue software is a bit hefty at >200MB, but it has all of the functions I needed and no account necessary to use them. I've gotten three more for friends since.
First off; In a world without Windows, why would you need AD?
I'm not asking to be mean, but IMO this is one of the bigger problems with switching out proprietary software, specifically Microsoft's offerings. People are so indoctrinated, that they keep trying to solve Microsoft problems, the Microsoft way, which invariably leads to anything different being deemed "inferior". If you look at it that way, your question is the perfect example.
Let's look at a handful of things AD does that would likely apply to Linux clients: 1.) Centralized authentication. Users should be able to have their password apply to any computer in the environment. LDAP does this particular part pretty well. 2.) Failover/Replication. LDAP supports this. LDAP does not support this in less than an hour from a bare metal install unless you have a bunch of scripts already written. 3.) Group policies. How do you ensure different departments can only print to their own printers (Linux users print, right?)? How do you make sure profile folders are transparently redirected to the server (Linux users store data, right?)? How do you schedule patching intervals (Linux users want patches applied after hours, right?)? How do you specify proxy settings, especially when adding a trusted certificate for HTTPS filtering (Companies don't allow free-for-all internet access for Linux users, right)? Now, the answer may well be "shell scripts at logon", but do you have different scripts for different user/computer combinations? All of this is done via group policy.
That's just off the top of my head.
Secondly, your version of a DoD sounds like a good idea, but it wouldn't just be a matter of principle. It would be a matter of trust and control too. One can only ever have one master, and as long as we (as in we, the people of the state) rely on commercial actors, who ultimately have a completely different agenda and set of desires from what a state has, there will be conflicts of interests. It's crazy to have a state beholden to the whims and desires external entities!
I'd love there to be a DoD, but I also fear that government developers would be hamstrung in some of the very worst ways. infinite scope creep, "why are we funding this finished project; we don't need no stinkin' patches?", "Your EMR connector needs to be able to understand data from $STATE_A and $STATE_B, each of whom use different systems built by direct competitors to be as incompatible as possible", constant subservience to the political and budget wind, standoffs regarding who gets to make the standard and who gets to conform to it (exacerbated if a state who has opted out of a new system still has to get their current one into compliance), incumbent systems dating back to the 80's, kowtowing to requests of different states if they're willing to directly fund projects, secondary effects from/to the private sector, and even the fundamentals - do they assume you're running GovSys from the BIOS up, do we assume Windows and GovLinux versions of everything, can they write a program with a depedency on Oracle? Could they do so if Oracle was compelled to release a version of their software that could be utilized to fill that requirement without expenditure, and if so, do we now reopen the can of worms that was the San Bernadino iPhone case?
A new country starting today could probably make that one of their enumerated departments and require conformity from the very first computer purchased might have a fighting chance. China and DPRK who own the major software houses anyway could have one; it'd basically be a standards body at that point - one of the silver linings of an absolutist government. The USA...sadly...would be a super difficult place to make that happen.
What? none of this babble makes any sense. You are droning on about bad player or w/e, while thinking your dumbass consumer router is safe?
I'm just guessing a bit here, since I do the Ubiquiti thing in my house, but my guess is that it has to do with the implementation of these systems.
I don't think the expectation is that a $75 Linksys router is going to have the same firewall capabilities of a Meraki and is as resilient to targeted attacks. The issue is that while most garden variety routers are configured using a browser and a URL, these systems require an app, which requires an account be created with the company, and the router and nodes be tied to your account...that sort of thing.
It's one thing to question that a router might not be an impenetrable fortress or might possibly be sending data back to the mothership using its MAC address as a unique identifier. It's another for a router to explicitly require the user to provide personal information in order to shuffle packets in and out.
Windows is not open source, but users and developers are cheaper.
You're ignoring the cost of running Windows. Not just the up front costs, but the maintenance costs, and the lost opportunity costs when closed source makes something difficult or impractical.
These also apply for running OSS. I'm sure it's possible to ultimately replace Active Directory with some implementation of LDAP on CentOS, but a virtually any sysadmin with a pulse can go from bare metal to multiple domain controllers with checkbox-compliant GPOs, DHCP, DNS, shared folder permissions, and server clustering in an afternoon or two. I've yet to come across a drop-in replacement for that sort of core functionality in an OSS package. Additionally, a whole lot of closed source software only runs on Windows; moving to not-Windows yields lost opportunity costs on that end as well.
I find myself as a software pragmatist. I would love nothing more than the Department of Developers (DoD?) whose job is to write OSS software that is compliant enough to replace closed source titles in use by the federal/state/local government. However, it would be a matter of principle, not a matter of cost savings...and it's been a very, very long time since we've had a political climate where such a department could be effectively founded and funded.
Duh. They are, however, the most prolific corporation in the mobile space whose business model is primarily defined by that tracking.
Your carrier tracks you. Sorry. They do it in different ways, but your location-based services are all ready and waiting for you.
That's one of the things rooting allows a person to address. Ask any app on my phone what my location is, and I'm at the north pole, all day, every day. Now yes, the carriers can use triangulation and a few other tricks, but there's a big difference between "knowing where I am within a square mile" and "knowing where I am within 15 feet".
Your DNS tracks you. Maybe you use CloudFront 1.1.1. but ask CloudFront what THEY do with the data. If you use Google's DNS, you're insane if you don't think they're tracking you.
There's also Level 3. There's also FoolDNS. There's also Quad9. There's also Route53.
More to the point, the key is distribution. If Cloudfront has my DNS queries in isolation, that's different than them having other sources of data with which to build a profile.
Your IP address is going to come from somewhere, bubba. Hmmm. Wonder what CIDR bock that address comes from. Oh.
My Carrier, who's probably got CGN going on?
It's really tough to not be "uniqued".
This is true, but it sounds like you're arguing that since it's impossible to avoid any profiling, it's fruitless to do anything to attempt to mitigate it, even a little bit. I'm sure, at the end of the day, Google is storing all of my search queries. Maybe they've got me figured out enough that they can tie most of them together, rather than having a shadow profile or two on me. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to log into Chrome and explicitly request that they save my entire search history. Maybe they take my call logs and maybe they don't, but I'm not explicitly giving them all of my contacts.
True anonymity sadly has to consider all of the most paranoid possibilities. Why? Who has more computing power, you or them?
Them. Maybe, despite all of my efforts, they're still getting 98% of the data they're after anyway. I cannot change that. The remaining two percent, however, shows intent. It shows resistance. Maybe it is indeed a pointless fight, but that two percent remains mine, and any data that I have and Google doesn't is still a victory.
For the moment, it is. The concern isn't terribly high at the moment, primarily because Microsoft is still very bad at monetizing it. Right now, they're laying the groundwork for shifting from "selling Windows and Office" to making money in other ways. The apps that show up spontaneously on the Start Menu of Windows 10 aren't because Microsoft thinks you'll really like them. Microsoft defaulting the OOBE to using an MS Account and allowing all data collection isn't simply out of the goodness of their heart, any more than them trying to super encourage developers to develop UWP apps instead of Win32 programs.
The reality is that MS wants to be Google more than they want to be a slightly-less-terrible Oracle. Sadly, I can't completely blame them. Windows Server has been basically feature complete since 2008R2; it's getting tougher and tougher to add useful features. There's only so much subscription revenue to go around before on-prem deployments start eyeballing OSS alternatives. Azure hosting and Office365 have been pretty successful, but it's not the hockey stick growth curve the MBAs want. They'll only be able to make Google Money in advertising if they have eyeballs. Since Bing hasn't been able to get more than a few percentage points in the search market, they need to leverage their saturated market. If they go all-in too quickly, it'll make iPads and Chromebooks seem like a better platform. Meanwhile, luring advertisers from Google and Facebook means having granular demographic data. Windows is how they're getting it.
Just because they're in the collection phase *now* doesn't mean they'll stay there forever. Eventually, MS will monetize that data.
Me too! It's annoying that my cable company insists on using the CopyOnce flag on most of their channels; MythTV has major issues with that and PlexDVR is still very much a 1.0 product.
I haven't tried it yet, but this looks like the next step for me: http://epg123.garyan2.net/ It costs $25/year for the SchedulesDirect subscription, but that costs far less than renting a DVR from the cable company. If you're like me and intend to keep WMC going for as long as the hardware holds out, it might be worth the look.
Phones, tablets and televisions with software that can be updated?
They already have this.
The issue is not that the devices are technologically incapable of software updates. As sold, most phones get updates when their OEM says so, which causes issues on both fronts. For the bleeding edge crowd, the Google->OEM->carrier->end user run takes too long. In many cases, phones less than a year old end up not getting new OS updates, which bothers that crowd.
On the other hand, the "don't move my cheese" crowd isn't a fan of when those updates come because it invariably changes the procedure of doing stuff they know how to do, they'll never use the new features, they *were* using features that were removed, and it'll probably reset more than a handful of customizations they have to go back and redo for no added value...but in general, Android phones with updates won't give the "skip update" option, instead saying "remind me in four hours" - in other words, "ask me six times a day until I cave". This crowd isn't happy either.
But, the tech press kept on using the term "fragmentation" as if it was a fate worse than death to have to program to several different API levels, as if somehow software development was impossible around the turn of the century when Windows 98/SE/2000/ME/NT/XP were all supported operating systems. So, we got the very worst possible deal: phones that either don't get updates, or force them.
What I think the GP is really suggesting is that phones end up being more open and giving control of OS updates back to the end user. It should be possible for users to attempt to load Android 9.x onto their Galaxy S3 if they want; if it works, it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't...but only official Samsung images (which might only go up to 4.4.x for the S3, for example) will receive support or warranty service. There's nothing stopping me from installing Windows 10 or Linux Mint on a decade old Dell Optiplex with a first gen C2D and 2GB of RAM - oh, it's a bad idea, but there are no artificial limitations on me doing that. Phones and tablets have those artificial limitations.
Presumably (and if he isn't saying it, I am), the argument is that it shouldn't be the role of the XDA community to write software removing artificial limitations on OS installs and other forms of software-based upgrades that can extend the life of hardware beyond the OEM's intent.
An all-platform messaging system already exists. It's called e-mail, and thankfully it's not owned by a single corporation. I don't see the need for a bazillion services that do nothing but duplicate the functionality of email, badly.
E-mail has its advantages, but it has its drawbacks. It does threaded messaging terribly. It does many-to-many terribly. It is too easy for conversations to get fragmented and splintered, and incredibly difficult to rejoin them thereafter. Attachment limits are never clear. Spam is everpresent. There is no meaningful sent/delivered/read notification.
There is a reason why Slack and Teams exist, and are popular in corporate environments where E-mail has long-since been a standard. I agree that a common, open protocol is preferable to the current hodgepodge of Hangouts/Kik/Whatsapp/Messenger/Viber/WeChat/GroupMe/Skype/BBM/++. However, XMPP hasn't seemed to have E-mails success, and clients built on top of it tend to lock their implementation down, which doesn't serve the purpose.
Actually it is well documented. Technology in he classroom has proven to disrupt learning not enable it. The higher cognitive functioning technology was suppose to allow has not materialized. In fact the use of technology has shown students regress in simple tasks.
Technology in schools was always about sales and never about education.
100% sincere request: I haven't read any studies that proved this either way, so if you have citations, I would be very interested in reading them.
That being said, I don't think it was a matter of tech can alter brain chemistry, so much as the fact that there are things that can be demonstrated in an interactive environment. For example, allowing students to use drag-and-drop interfaces for math, or make things disappear to improve simplicity in visualization, or using colors to separate nouns and verbs in a sentence, or showing the Coriolis effect by showing the youtube video of two guys on the opposite side of the world draining swimming pools.
The problem isn't that tech is useless, it's that people who buy stuff for schools seem to think it's possible to budget for a palette of laptops and a few access points and then kids are going to 'just learn it'. Teachers, who are already overworked, underpaid, and who have a wide gamut of experience ranging from "Office 2010 in high school" to "the old guard who used WordPerfect 5.1 in college" to "zomg I have an iPhone but I don't know how to work it, teehee", to "Yes, I actually know how to use this stuff, but I am disallowed to have admin credentials"...and the decision makers didn't budget for training or had the following plan for implementation: 1. Acquire Chromebooks. 2. Tell teachers to teach students to use Chromebooks. 3. ??? 4. Tell parents that they are teaching technology in the classroom. 5. Profit?
This ends up with royally inconsistent results that lean toward the lowest common denominator of "kids can log in and use the obvious parts of Google Docs". Sometimes it's a bit better, and sometimes it's a bit worse. I remember reading a Slashdot comment a few years back of a school that did a 1:1 iPad rollout, and the kids had to take spelling tests on it, but the app they used didn't disable autocorrect.
Because of this wild inconsistency and so many people involved, it's not that classroom tech can't be done well, but it's very rare to have the desire to do so in every step from the superintendent on down to ensure that proper training and support structures are available in order to make it the case.
tl;dr: When tech in the classroom is done properly, it can indeed be an asset. However, that ideal has so many points of failure that it is incredibly rare to not have those initiatives backfire in some way, some more spectacularly than others.
So, the reason why MIDI has served the test of time is because it's a relatively simple protocol that does one(ish) thing and does it well - it provides data from musical instruments that is easily readable by other things which understand this very-well-defined spec, and allows things to be daisy-chained so that data can be manipulated and the data altered as a function of its sequence on the bus. It's very well understood, and that data can be manipulated however the devices wish to do so. Its simplicity is why it has stood the test of time, it is well-documented and as such is easily implemented by anyone, and I'm unaware of any royalties required to pay anyone for its use, making it possible to use in everything from open source projects to multi-thousand-dollar DJ controllers and keyboard workstations. Let's see what they're going to replace it with...
auto-configuration
There is no real configuration needed in most modern MIDI implementations, to my knowledge. The configuration is primarily on how the software interacts with it, and let's be real - that's the sort of thing the user should be doing anyway.
new DAW/web integrations
Ehm...this sounds like code for "a protocol that can allow for things like Mainstage to run in a web browser rather than on the device", to which I'd generally say, "stop making a web browser into an operating system". I really don't see the point of web integrations otherwise, and I don't see how "DAW integrations" is a problem to be solved. A DAW that doesn't support MIDI is like a word processor that doesn't support printing - fails at its core purpose and thus generally doesn't exist. If the plan is to be able to connect DAWs to each other, that's already a solved problem with Rewire...or existing MIDI files...or bouncing tracks...or running a DAW as a VST plugin. I fail to see the unsolved problem here.
extended resolution
I mean, I guess...but that's like saying we need a new standard for smaller MicroSD cards. Sure it's possible, but usability starts being counterproductive. Is there really that pressing a need for a higher-res MIDI protocol such that its human interface justifies it? Current MIDI doesn't seem to be a problem for DJs on controllers or have note limits that extend beyond what human hands can accomplish; anything much more than that I'm pretty sure is already solved in data-to-data sorts of ways that don't require MIDI.
increased expressiveness,
What even does this mean?
and tighter timing.
Again...*maybe*...but I'm open to scenarios where current MIDI timing is an actual-issue. It's like saying that RS-232 serial at 115,200 is too slow. It is if the intent is bulk data transfer, but it's plenty quick for its most common contemporary use case - typing commands into Cisco routers and similar appliances; it's far faster than I can type commands or read output and its simplicity means I am not limited to a particular solution.
So, with a recession, there are a few things. First, recessions are beyond the control of any one company. Even in 2007, the issue was "the banks" - nobody blamed Wells Fargo or Capital One explicitly, which meant that they could play hot potato and work together to get their bailouts. A security breach doesn't have the same luxury.
Next, while a recession is a predictable economic cycle with well-understood means of remediation, a digital breach could mean anything. Even if it was something as innocuous as a breach from a customer feedback form (i.e. basically no personal data), it may well be reported as an Experian-type breach, and then it's simply the unwinnable game of bad publicity. On the other hand, it may not be personal data at all, but instead the sort of data that enables the company to have an advantage over its competitors. Sure, one would hope that the competitors aren't willing to pay for that data to be provided, but if a script kiddie puts some proprietary code on The Pirate Bay for easy download, it's near impossible to be sure that at least one of them won't take a peek. It could also be the sorts of things that would be embarrassing - information indicating that their ads aren't as truthful as they should be, the infamous Sony E-mail leaks, account credentials, and of course, Experian's experience with 'just about everything'. The concern over a breach is a concern over the unknown.
Finally, while there are no shortage of CEOs of questionable competence, in aggregate most have some awareness of economics. They understand the core tenets of finance and how money moves, and how economic trends affect their company. They may not be specialists like their finance or actuarial departments are, but they can have a discussion with some semblance of understanding. Their server rooms may as well be the halls of Hogwarts. Very few CEOs have an understanding of how data flows, how firewalls work, how networks fundamentally operate, or what sort of threats could cause a data breach. It's an utterly foreign concept that requires so many layers of simplification to have a discussion between CEO and the people who can do something to prevent a breach that even the attempt would require something far more rare than a CEO with a technical aptitude: a CEO and a technical person who have both patience and communication skills to decide what to do, how to do it, and have realistic estimates for both time and money.
So yeah, it's perfectly reasonable for CEOs to be more nervous about how to handle a data breach than a recession. One has been happening to everybody for a century. The other is newer with far less science behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't intrinsically mind my Netflix bill going up another buck or two a month; that's about in line with inflation when they started doing the streaming thing.
The bigger issue is that they're shifting, and while I get it, it's overall less compelling. They killed Blockbuster by allowing DVD rentals in the mail without any late fees. They pivoted toward streaming, because obviously that was the next logical step. Then, they started producing original content because it was starting to cost more in licensing to keep big-four movies in the list than it cost to produce their own, and with House of Cards and Orange Is The New Black turning out to be pretty popular, I certainly can't blame them for focusing more on original content than trying to license Hollywood blockbusters.
The problem is that as the third party content continues to wane, Netflix stops being Netflix and they end up just being the new HBO, while also competing with HBO, and Disney, and everyone else who wants a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
Now, there's enough good Netflix content across the spectrum for them to sustain an audience, and Netflix has already proven that they have a market for their original content.
The question is whether their original content is something most of their customers will be willing to pay more for, and while I think they are, I think that for Netflix to continue to grow as another-HBO-on-the-Internet, they're going to start to be doing it at the expense of the companies from whom they previously licensed content. It will be interesting whether Netflix starts beating Disney at their own game, or vice versa...because I submit that the lack of any Disney/Marvel/Star Wars content is going to be a bigger tell than a $2 rate hike.
I think if Microsoft was only forcing updates for critical security issues everybody would agree with you.
Precisely this. Security updates generally tend to be small and install quickly. Odds are pretty good that half of them can be installed transparently and without a reboot.
The problem tends to be the larger updates, especially the 'feature updates' that take hours to install in order to add features nobody asked for.
'Muh Securrity' isn't a justifiable reason why a recent round of updates basically told users their documents and other data would be uploaded to OneDrive by default.
Fellow Staples alum. We generally had the 60s/70s/80s soft rock sort of thing going on; I don't know artists or titles but I know the first ten seconds of every song to this day...
The funniest story I remember was one year on Back to School Wednesday (the day when all four local school districts got their BTS lists and every register did over $200,000 in pencils and folders...), our GM was cool and our BM guys knew how to plug in an iPod from the Muzak system, so she let us put on whatever we wanted once all the customers left. So, we put on Lewis Black. We had the highest gross sales in the district that day, so our district manager called the GM to congratulate her. We put her on hold to enable the call transfer, and then realized that ehm, we had some unique hold music...
I mean, maybe it is some sort of smear campaign...but...is it possible that it isn't?
I never followed the comic books. Captain Marvel has never been in any of the previous Marvel movies. For that matter, she has never even been mentioned, aside from the post credit sequence of Infinity War. "Who is this new person that's been sitting around during all the other world-ending things that took place over the past decade?", I ask myself? Meanwhile, Infinity War set up a massive cliffhanger. Chris Evans alluded to Captain America dying in Endgame. We know Captain Marvel isn't going to be the solution to that story line, and the Captain Marvel movie probably won't even make it to Blu-Ray before Endgame is released.
So, is it possible - just possible - that there *is* a reduced desire to see CM simply because of the shadow between the two Infinity War films? I'm just saying that not everything ever is related to Russian bots and sexism.
So you've seen it too? What did you think about the scene with the kittens and the meat grinder?
That one was just terrible.
The reason I was so conflicted about the first example was how eerily specific it was. 'Kittens in a meat grinder' is the sort of shock value that proves the GGP's point effectively and would have done the job. However, the example provided was scary with how detailed it was, which is the source of my internal conflict.
videos of pre-teen mothers feeding freshly plucked aborted foetuses from bottles of heroin with blazing pentagrams on them while being sodomized by German shepherds
I have so many highly conflicted feelings about this video...
Can you really show me A/B testing that shows it is 6 times better than the $10 mouse at Fry's? How about even twice as better as the $5? It's like selling $500 sneakers to aspiring pro athletes.
I can't speak for the 518 (though I know a few who swear by it), but I've got a Corsair Scimitar Pro, and yes, it's worth the $60 I paid for it. Being able to assign keystroke combinations, text entries, and macros to the different buttons has helped me do repetitive tasks far more quickly than if I got stuck doing them by hand, and some of them are the sorts of things that don't lend themselves to bash scripts. For example, once I had to add 100 users, their e-mail addresses, and their folder shares to three different Xerox copiers - the right combination of alt+tabs, ctrl+c, ctrl+v, tab, arrow keys, and delays meant I was able to do that in about 15 minutes per copier. Did I mention they don't require an account or any sort of data mining?
Yes, there are other things that enable running macros at a system level, but the mouse is well worth it for the functionality.
If this one is bundled into the same lawsuit, they'll probably lose.
SiliconDust's service requires:
1. HDHomeRun Hardware.
2. Active cable service.
3. A CableCARD.
4. A login.
5. Internet service.
6. A destination device.
It's basically a replacement for port forwarding - people using it still pay a cable bill. It's tough to use the Aereo case as an argument if users are paying for cable service as a prerequisite for using SD's offering, and if a login is intended to protect against mass sharing.
And who says we don't live in a theocracy...
Is the government threatening DC with fines/jail time/threat of life if they publish it?
Is there any county, state, or federal law preventing DC from publishing it?
Is there any county, state, or federal law preventing retailers from selling it?
If DC were to publish it and retailers were to sell it, and people were to cause quantifiable harm to either of them as a result, would the government fail to arrest those who caused that harm?
No, no, no, and no. Therefore, I can conclude that we do not, in fact, live in a theocracy.
What we have is DC making a decision about what they want to publish. Exercising their right to the freedom of the press as they are choosing to not-publish something is basically the antithesis of what a theocratic government would do.
I haven't looked forward to a game release in years. It's pretty simple...
-I don't game on my phone. ...So basically, 98% of new AAA games aren't written for me. And that's fine. I'm voting with my wallet; I've got green pastures of games in my Steam. Not everything has to be incredibly story driven or be some GPU workout, either. I have fun playing PinballFX and Sol Exodus, Game Dev Tycoon and Trine. I'm one of those people who still enjoys playing Unreal Tournament in all of its iterations - it's got the same concept as Destiny 2 ("Go to the place and shoot the lads"), but with far fewer annoyances, free DLC, and free multiplayer. And, of course, no matter how many times I play the Mass Effect trilogy (and even Andromeda), I come across a new thing somewhere.
-I don't want a game without a single player campaign (y'know, an actual campaign, not a 90-minute tutorial).
-I don't want a game with lootboxes.
-I don't want a game with microtransactions.
-I don't want a game with an always-online requirement.
I realize that saying "they don't make 'em like they used to" wreaks of nostalgia, but I preordered Andromeda, and on the sole basis that it was one of the last EA games that didn't wreak of microtransactions and lootboxes, I'd do it again if only to encourage that sort of model. Activision has the same problem - Starcraft isn't always my cup of tea, but when I'm in the mood, I'm happy with what it is, to the chagrin of Activision who would far rather I be a fan of CoD: BO4. I got that game for free and I still didn't find it to be fun at all, even though the first Black Ops game was one of my favorites of the series.
EA shifted their business model toward short term profits, and while it worked for a while, it's obvious to everybody with a brain stem that microtransactions and second-half-of-the-game DLC simply isn't going to garner loyalty in the long term. It's just that the chickens are finally coming home to roost, and while it's possible that they'll figure out what the rest of us already know, I wouldn't wager a counterfeit wooden nickel on it.
I don't mind the build quality of the BlackWidow keyboard I used to have. The USB cable wasn't too keen on the 90-degree bend I got stuck doing as a result of using it with a laptop, but the Cherry MX Blue keys were the selling point, and they were true to form.
I don't mind Synapse in isolation, but my big gripe about it is that it requires an account. It's not possible to create macros for the macro keys without an account for 'cloud syncing', and that wasn't terribly well stipulated before purchase...so I swiftly set the Windows Firewall to deny any-any from the Razer executables once the account was made; unsurprisingly it worked just fine in offline mode.
When I decided to do my macros on a mouse instead of a keyboard, I went with the Corsair MMO mouse; their iCue software is a bit hefty at >200MB, but it has all of the functions I needed and no account necessary to use them. I've gotten three more for friends since.
First off; In a world without Windows, why would you need AD?
I'm not asking to be mean, but IMO this is one of the bigger problems with switching out proprietary software, specifically Microsoft's offerings. People are so indoctrinated, that they keep trying to solve Microsoft problems, the Microsoft way, which invariably leads to anything different being deemed "inferior". If you look at it that way, your question is the perfect example.
Let's look at a handful of things AD does that would likely apply to Linux clients:
1.) Centralized authentication. Users should be able to have their password apply to any computer in the environment. LDAP does this particular part pretty well.
2.) Failover/Replication. LDAP supports this. LDAP does not support this in less than an hour from a bare metal install unless you have a bunch of scripts already written.
3.) Group policies. How do you ensure different departments can only print to their own printers (Linux users print, right?)? How do you make sure profile folders are transparently redirected to the server (Linux users store data, right?)? How do you schedule patching intervals (Linux users want patches applied after hours, right?)? How do you specify proxy settings, especially when adding a trusted certificate for HTTPS filtering (Companies don't allow free-for-all internet access for Linux users, right)? Now, the answer may well be "shell scripts at logon", but do you have different scripts for different user/computer combinations? All of this is done via group policy.
That's just off the top of my head.
Secondly, your version of a DoD sounds like a good idea, but it wouldn't just be a matter of principle. It would be a matter of trust and control too. One can only ever have one master, and as long as we (as in we, the people of the state) rely on commercial actors, who ultimately have a completely different agenda and set of desires from what a state has, there will be conflicts of interests. It's crazy to have a state beholden to the whims and desires external entities!
I'd love there to be a DoD, but I also fear that government developers would be hamstrung in some of the very worst ways. infinite scope creep, "why are we funding this finished project; we don't need no stinkin' patches?", "Your EMR connector needs to be able to understand data from $STATE_A and $STATE_B, each of whom use different systems built by direct competitors to be as incompatible as possible", constant subservience to the political and budget wind, standoffs regarding who gets to make the standard and who gets to conform to it (exacerbated if a state who has opted out of a new system still has to get their current one into compliance), incumbent systems dating back to the 80's, kowtowing to requests of different states if they're willing to directly fund projects, secondary effects from/to the private sector, and even the fundamentals - do they assume you're running GovSys from the BIOS up, do we assume Windows and GovLinux versions of everything, can they write a program with a depedency on Oracle? Could they do so if Oracle was compelled to release a version of their software that could be utilized to fill that requirement without expenditure, and if so, do we now reopen the can of worms that was the San Bernadino iPhone case?
A new country starting today could probably make that one of their enumerated departments and require conformity from the very first computer purchased might have a fighting chance. China and DPRK who own the major software houses anyway could have one; it'd basically be a standards body at that point - one of the silver linings of an absolutist government. The USA...sadly...would be a super difficult place to make that happen.
What? none of this babble makes any sense. You are droning on about bad player or w/e, while thinking your dumbass consumer router is safe?
I'm just guessing a bit here, since I do the Ubiquiti thing in my house, but my guess is that it has to do with the implementation of these systems.
I don't think the expectation is that a $75 Linksys router is going to have the same firewall capabilities of a Meraki and is as resilient to targeted attacks. The issue is that while most garden variety routers are configured using a browser and a URL, these systems require an app, which requires an account be created with the company, and the router and nodes be tied to your account...that sort of thing.
It's one thing to question that a router might not be an impenetrable fortress or might possibly be sending data back to the mothership using its MAC address as a unique identifier. It's another for a router to explicitly require the user to provide personal information in order to shuffle packets in and out.
Amy made her big announcement yesterday - how come Slashdot is only caught up to it today?
Because the news story was sent to Slashdot using an internet connection where Slashdot traffic was heavily deprioritized.
This sounds like a "Macro" with more steps. Welcome to the 1980's.
Windows is not open source, but users and developers are cheaper.
You're ignoring the cost of running Windows. Not just the up front costs, but the maintenance costs, and the lost opportunity costs when closed source makes something difficult or impractical.
These also apply for running OSS. I'm sure it's possible to ultimately replace Active Directory with some implementation of LDAP on CentOS, but a virtually any sysadmin with a pulse can go from bare metal to multiple domain controllers with checkbox-compliant GPOs, DHCP, DNS, shared folder permissions, and server clustering in an afternoon or two. I've yet to come across a drop-in replacement for that sort of core functionality in an OSS package. Additionally, a whole lot of closed source software only runs on Windows; moving to not-Windows yields lost opportunity costs on that end as well.
I find myself as a software pragmatist. I would love nothing more than the Department of Developers (DoD?) whose job is to write OSS software that is compliant enough to replace closed source titles in use by the federal/state/local government. However, it would be a matter of principle, not a matter of cost savings...and it's been a very, very long time since we've had a political climate where such a department could be effectively founded and funded.
Google is not the only one that tracks you.
Duh. They are, however, the most prolific corporation in the mobile space whose business model is primarily defined by that tracking.
Your carrier tracks you. Sorry. They do it in different ways, but your location-based services are all ready and waiting for you.
That's one of the things rooting allows a person to address. Ask any app on my phone what my location is, and I'm at the north pole, all day, every day. Now yes, the carriers can use triangulation and a few other tricks, but there's a big difference between "knowing where I am within a square mile" and "knowing where I am within 15 feet".
Your DNS tracks you. Maybe you use CloudFront 1.1.1. but ask CloudFront what THEY do with the data. If you use Google's DNS, you're insane if you don't think they're tracking you.
There's also Level 3.
There's also FoolDNS.
There's also Quad9.
There's also Route53.
More to the point, the key is distribution. If Cloudfront has my DNS queries in isolation, that's different than them having other sources of data with which to build a profile.
Your IP address is going to come from somewhere, bubba. Hmmm. Wonder what CIDR bock that address comes from. Oh.
My Carrier, who's probably got CGN going on?
It's really tough to not be "uniqued".
This is true, but it sounds like you're arguing that since it's impossible to avoid any profiling, it's fruitless to do anything to attempt to mitigate it, even a little bit. I'm sure, at the end of the day, Google is storing all of my search queries. Maybe they've got me figured out enough that they can tie most of them together, rather than having a shadow profile or two on me. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to log into Chrome and explicitly request that they save my entire search history. Maybe they take my call logs and maybe they don't, but I'm not explicitly giving them all of my contacts.
True anonymity sadly has to consider all of the most paranoid possibilities. Why? Who has more computing power, you or them?
Them. Maybe, despite all of my efforts, they're still getting 98% of the data they're after anyway. I cannot change that. The remaining two percent, however, shows intent. It shows resistance. Maybe it is indeed a pointless fight, but that two percent remains mine, and any data that I have and Google doesn't is still a victory.
The first kid, a 14yo, apparently posted pictures of guns....Who knows, maybe he scanned a picture out a Sears catalog, but check just in case.
Not taking a side, but just pointing out that one of those things is a bit easier to come by than the other.
For the moment, it is. The concern isn't terribly high at the moment, primarily because Microsoft is still very bad at monetizing it. Right now, they're laying the groundwork for shifting from "selling Windows and Office" to making money in other ways. The apps that show up spontaneously on the Start Menu of Windows 10 aren't because Microsoft thinks you'll really like them. Microsoft defaulting the OOBE to using an MS Account and allowing all data collection isn't simply out of the goodness of their heart, any more than them trying to super encourage developers to develop UWP apps instead of Win32 programs.
The reality is that MS wants to be Google more than they want to be a slightly-less-terrible Oracle. Sadly, I can't completely blame them. Windows Server has been basically feature complete since 2008R2; it's getting tougher and tougher to add useful features. There's only so much subscription revenue to go around before on-prem deployments start eyeballing OSS alternatives. Azure hosting and Office365 have been pretty successful, but it's not the hockey stick growth curve the MBAs want. They'll only be able to make Google Money in advertising if they have eyeballs. Since Bing hasn't been able to get more than a few percentage points in the search market, they need to leverage their saturated market. If they go all-in too quickly, it'll make iPads and Chromebooks seem like a better platform. Meanwhile, luring advertisers from Google and Facebook means having granular demographic data. Windows is how they're getting it.
Just because they're in the collection phase *now* doesn't mean they'll stay there forever. Eventually, MS will monetize that data.
Me too! It's annoying that my cable company insists on using the CopyOnce flag on most of their channels; MythTV has major issues with that and PlexDVR is still very much a 1.0 product.
I haven't tried it yet, but this looks like the next step for me:
http://epg123.garyan2.net/
It costs $25/year for the SchedulesDirect subscription, but that costs far less than renting a DVR from the cable company. If you're like me and intend to keep WMC going for as long as the hardware holds out, it might be worth the look.
Phones, tablets and televisions with software that can be updated?
They already have this.
The issue is not that the devices are technologically incapable of software updates. As sold, most phones get updates when their OEM says so, which causes issues on both fronts. For the bleeding edge crowd, the Google->OEM->carrier->end user run takes too long. In many cases, phones less than a year old end up not getting new OS updates, which bothers that crowd.
On the other hand, the "don't move my cheese" crowd isn't a fan of when those updates come because it invariably changes the procedure of doing stuff they know how to do, they'll never use the new features, they *were* using features that were removed, and it'll probably reset more than a handful of customizations they have to go back and redo for no added value...but in general, Android phones with updates won't give the "skip update" option, instead saying "remind me in four hours" - in other words, "ask me six times a day until I cave". This crowd isn't happy either.
But, the tech press kept on using the term "fragmentation" as if it was a fate worse than death to have to program to several different API levels, as if somehow software development was impossible around the turn of the century when Windows 98/SE/2000/ME/NT/XP were all supported operating systems. So, we got the very worst possible deal: phones that either don't get updates, or force them.
What I think the GP is really suggesting is that phones end up being more open and giving control of OS updates back to the end user. It should be possible for users to attempt to load Android 9.x onto their Galaxy S3 if they want; if it works, it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't...but only official Samsung images (which might only go up to 4.4.x for the S3, for example) will receive support or warranty
service. There's nothing stopping me from installing Windows 10 or Linux Mint on a decade old Dell Optiplex with a first gen C2D and 2GB of RAM - oh, it's a bad idea, but there are no artificial limitations on me doing that. Phones and tablets have those artificial limitations.
Presumably (and if he isn't saying it, I am), the argument is that it shouldn't be the role of the XDA community to write software removing artificial limitations on OS installs and other forms of software-based upgrades that can extend the life of hardware beyond the OEM's intent.
An all-platform messaging system already exists. It's called e-mail, and thankfully it's not owned by a single corporation.
I don't see the need for a bazillion services that do nothing but duplicate the functionality of email, badly.
E-mail has its advantages, but it has its drawbacks. It does threaded messaging terribly. It does many-to-many terribly. It is too easy for conversations to get fragmented and splintered, and incredibly difficult to rejoin them thereafter. Attachment limits are never clear. Spam is everpresent. There is no meaningful sent/delivered/read notification.
There is a reason why Slack and Teams exist, and are popular in corporate environments where E-mail has long-since been a standard. I agree that a common, open protocol is preferable to the current hodgepodge of Hangouts/Kik/Whatsapp/Messenger/Viber/WeChat/GroupMe/Skype/BBM/++. However, XMPP hasn't seemed to have E-mails success, and clients built on top of it tend to lock their implementation down, which doesn't serve the purpose.
Actually it is well documented. Technology in he classroom has proven to disrupt learning not enable it. The higher cognitive functioning technology was suppose to allow has not materialized. In fact the use of technology has shown students regress in simple tasks.
Technology in schools was always about sales and never about education.
100% sincere request: I haven't read any studies that proved this either way, so if you have citations, I would be very interested in reading them.
That being said, I don't think it was a matter of tech can alter brain chemistry, so much as the fact that there are things that can be demonstrated in an interactive environment. For example, allowing students to use drag-and-drop interfaces for math, or make things disappear to improve simplicity in visualization, or using colors to separate nouns and verbs in a sentence, or showing the Coriolis effect by showing the youtube video of two guys on the opposite side of the world draining swimming pools.
The problem isn't that tech is useless, it's that people who buy stuff for schools seem to think it's possible to budget for a palette of laptops and a few access points and then kids are going to 'just learn it'. Teachers, who are already overworked, underpaid, and who have a wide gamut of experience ranging from "Office 2010 in high school" to "the old guard who used WordPerfect 5.1 in college" to "zomg I have an iPhone but I don't know how to work it, teehee", to "Yes, I actually know how to use this stuff, but I am disallowed to have admin credentials"...and the decision makers didn't budget for training or had the following plan for implementation:
1. Acquire Chromebooks.
2. Tell teachers to teach students to use Chromebooks.
3. ???
4. Tell parents that they are teaching technology in the classroom.
5. Profit?
This ends up with royally inconsistent results that lean toward the lowest common denominator of "kids can log in and use the obvious parts of Google Docs". Sometimes it's a bit better, and sometimes it's a bit worse. I remember reading a Slashdot comment a few years back of a school that did a 1:1 iPad rollout, and the kids had to take spelling tests on it, but the app they used didn't disable autocorrect.
Because of this wild inconsistency and so many people involved, it's not that classroom tech can't be done well, but it's very rare to have the desire to do so in every step from the superintendent on down to ensure that proper training and support structures are available in order to make it the case.
tl;dr: When tech in the classroom is done properly, it can indeed be an asset. However, that ideal has so many points of failure that it is incredibly rare to not have those initiatives backfire in some way, some more spectacularly than others.
So, the reason why MIDI has served the test of time is because it's a relatively simple protocol that does one(ish) thing and does it well - it provides data from musical instruments that is easily readable by other things which understand this very-well-defined spec, and allows things to be daisy-chained so that data can be manipulated and the data altered as a function of its sequence on the bus. It's very well understood, and that data can be manipulated however the devices wish to do so. Its simplicity is why it has stood the test of time, it is well-documented and as such is easily implemented by anyone, and I'm unaware of any royalties required to pay anyone for its use, making it possible to use in everything from open source projects to multi-thousand-dollar DJ controllers and keyboard workstations. Let's see what they're going to replace it with...
auto-configuration
There is no real configuration needed in most modern MIDI implementations, to my knowledge. The configuration is primarily on how the software interacts with it, and let's be real - that's the sort of thing the user should be doing anyway.
new DAW/web integrations
Ehm...this sounds like code for "a protocol that can allow for things like Mainstage to run in a web browser rather than on the device", to which I'd generally say, "stop making a web browser into an operating system". I really don't see the point of web integrations otherwise, and I don't see how "DAW integrations" is a problem to be solved. A DAW that doesn't support MIDI is like a word processor that doesn't support printing - fails at its core purpose and thus generally doesn't exist. If the plan is to be able to connect DAWs to each other, that's already a solved problem with Rewire...or existing MIDI files...or bouncing tracks...or running a DAW as a VST plugin. I fail to see the unsolved problem here.
extended resolution
I mean, I guess...but that's like saying we need a new standard for smaller MicroSD cards. Sure it's possible, but usability starts being counterproductive. Is there really that pressing a need for a higher-res MIDI protocol such that its human interface justifies it? Current MIDI doesn't seem to be a problem for DJs on controllers or have note limits that extend beyond what human hands can accomplish; anything much more than that I'm pretty sure is already solved in data-to-data sorts of ways that don't require MIDI.
increased expressiveness,
What even does this mean?
and tighter timing.
Again...*maybe*...but I'm open to scenarios where current MIDI timing is an actual-issue. It's like saying that RS-232 serial at 115,200 is too slow. It is if the intent is bulk data transfer, but it's plenty quick for its most common contemporary use case - typing commands into Cisco routers and similar appliances; it's far faster than I can type commands or read output and its simplicity means I am not limited to a particular solution.
So, with a recession, there are a few things. First, recessions are beyond the control of any one company. Even in 2007, the issue was "the banks" - nobody blamed Wells Fargo or Capital One explicitly, which meant that they could play hot potato and work together to get their bailouts. A security breach doesn't have the same luxury.
Next, while a recession is a predictable economic cycle with well-understood means of remediation, a digital breach could mean anything. Even if it was something as innocuous as a breach from a customer feedback form (i.e. basically no personal data), it may well be reported as an Experian-type breach, and then it's simply the unwinnable game of bad publicity. On the other hand, it may not be personal data at all, but instead the sort of data that enables the company to have an advantage over its competitors. Sure, one would hope that the competitors aren't willing to pay for that data to be provided, but if a script kiddie puts some proprietary code on The Pirate Bay for easy download, it's near impossible to be sure that at least one of them won't take a peek. It could also be the sorts of things that would be embarrassing - information indicating that their ads aren't as truthful as they should be, the infamous Sony E-mail leaks, account credentials, and of course, Experian's experience with 'just about everything'. The concern over a breach is a concern over the unknown.
Finally, while there are no shortage of CEOs of questionable competence, in aggregate most have some awareness of economics. They understand the core tenets of finance and how money moves, and how economic trends affect their company. They may not be specialists like their finance or actuarial departments are, but they can have a discussion with some semblance of understanding. Their server rooms may as well be the halls of Hogwarts. Very few CEOs have an understanding of how data flows, how firewalls work, how networks fundamentally operate, or what sort of threats could cause a data breach. It's an utterly foreign concept that requires so many layers of simplification to have a discussion between CEO and the people who can do something to prevent a breach that even the attempt would require something far more rare than a CEO with a technical aptitude: a CEO and a technical person who have both patience and communication skills to decide what to do, how to do it, and have realistic estimates for both time and money.
So yeah, it's perfectly reasonable for CEOs to be more nervous about how to handle a data breach than a recession. One has been happening to everybody for a century. The other is newer with far less science behind it.