This all smacks of attempts at damage control to me. They're being attacked left and right (both figuratively and politically), and their "stick our fingers in our ears" defence isn't working anymore.
So now they're all, "But... but... look at all the good we're doing!", hoping we'll ignore the fact that they kill off projects as fast as they put them out, and generally can't be trusted with anything that needs to last more than 6 months.
The whole article screams, "I don't know what I'm doing but I love jumping on bandwagons."
Apache Hadoop and Kafka are two completely different tools, intended for two COMPLETELY different workloads.
So if you used Hadoop when you should have used Kafka, that doesn't mean Hadoop is bad. It means you haven't done your job and properly vetted the tools available for suitability.
Also marked increases in bigotry/racism, violence, and don't forget general blamestorming from all quarters, the likes of which we've never seen before.
You're already required to prove that your devices are genuine, but turning them on and operating them in view of a security agent. Is that not enough?
To me this seems more of a "our existing security theatre isn't working anymore. Time to dial it up another notch" maneuver.
In other news, Bandwagon jumpers are shocked to discover that the cool new doohickey they read about in Tech Fashion Trends Magazine, doesn't actually magically fix every problem you throw it at.
Computer technology has now been around and commonplace for several decades now. It isn't knew that this stuff is complicated, and getting even more complicated with each passing year.
And yet while a client would never demand a builder use this specific kind of scaffolding and cement to build with because they read about how cool it was in some magazine, for some inexplicable reason people DO think that this is an entirely acceptable thing to do when it comes to software.
But that's ok. Customers who do this are a fantastic boon to the consulting industry. First for the slimey consultants (usually offshored to keep costs "low") that sell customers exactly what they want for, for cheap, and then for the much more expensive consultants later on who are tasked with trying to recover the steaming crater of a system the previous consultants left behind.
The problem with OS/2 wasn't technical. It was because the internal politics at IBM were so caustic that different departments had a vested interest in not letting other departments succeed, and OS/2 was seen as a threat (somehow) to the mainframe business.
OS/2 was a fantastic OS. It completely blew Windows away by pretty much every technical measure. But nobody cared cause it didn't get market share, and that was because people at IBM didn't *want* it to get marketshare.
But fast forward to today, and your point isn't unreasonable. The only ways OS/2 can be useful at this point is for people who need to maintain something very old that costs more to replace than maintain.
Which only makes me realize that I can never be a politician or a business person. I just can't bullshit people in a way that, when I spit in their eye, they just raise their arms in cheer and shout, "More!"
I was referring specifically to Google's social media nonsense. I've never relied on gmail for the exact reasons you state.
I've tried to use duckduckgo, but their search results quite simply arn't as good a lot of the time, and I am invariably forced to use google anyway. They may be unable to do anything else right, but their search tools are still the benchmark that everyone else strives to reach.
Seriously? You're really going there? Do you really have that much difficulty seeing the bigger picture here?
It was *their* choice to offer the service for free. It was *their* choice to call out to all and sundry, "Please! Use our free service!" *They* were actively encouraging, if not demanding, people use their services, to the point where google was forcibly tying their social media platforms into everything else.
Then they took it away and said, "Just kidding! Use THIS free service instead!"
Then they took it away and said, "Just kidding! Use THIS free service instead!"
Then they took it away and said, "Just kidding! Use THIS free service instead!"
The fact that it's free is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how free something is, if you can't even depend on it lasting a week before it's replaced with something else.
I personally have ZERO interest in using Google Talk, Hangouts, Allo, any other social media service they happen to come out with this particular afternoon. The only reason I ever even considered the option, is because other people I want to communicate with use it and they didn't want to use anything else.
But thanks to Google's idiocy, less and less people are relying on these services, and that suits me just fine cause I have one less service to worry about. Of course, about 40 other completely independent services have come out in the process, so it's hard to say if it's a win or not.
Messaging today has turned into a complete joke, and a large part of the blame for that can be laid on Google's doorstep for not being stable enough to put out a reliable product, and forcing people to look for alternatives.
Sounds like it's high time to completely boycott all of these stupid services that google makes.
I swear, I have never in my life met a company with such unbelievably severe, systemic organizational ADD, such that they can't seem to keep any of their services in operation for more than a few years before they get bored and try to convince everyone to change to something else.
It's to the point where I'm honestly surprised that Google Maps is still available.
Why is it *always* necessary to compare a government agency to how an equivalent private agency would run?
It's really that unbelievably difficult to understand that private business and public services operate in wildly different ways, with wildly different purposes and goals?
Do people have *any* idea how much things would cost if all government services were for profit? Either virtually every government run service would have to shut down, or be priced to the point where no one but the wealthy would be able to afford them.
If you want to argue that CSIR isn't fulfilling it's mission, that's fine. Argue away. But to argue that CSIR should be shut down because it isn't make a profit? That's just so mindbogglingly insane that it's not even wrong.
Why not apply the same criteria to every other government service? DMV? Libraries? Public schools? Roads? Emergency Services? Basic Utilities like water and sanitation? They should all be profitable or shut down! Hell, disband government entirely and make *everything* a for-profit company. You need clean water? Then you won't mind paying $10/gallon for it cause some Martin Shkreli clone wants to line his pockets.
Suddenly all you people who bitch about taxes being theft will be singing a wildly different tune. Assuming you can sing at all because you will be left financially destitute just trying to not die.
If people can at least agree that climate change is happening (man-caused or otherwise), can we not also agree that some form of mitigation is necessary? It's not as if climate change is an unheard of thing on our planet. That's not even the issue.
Humans are unique in that we can modify an environment to suit us, but that doesn't make us any less dependant on the other species on this planet, and so it is *still* in our best interests to keep things on as much an even keel as possible.
Species evolve slowly over time. As conditions change, animals *will* evolve. But if conditions change too quickly, then there isn't enough time to adapt and species die. So we don't necessarily need to stop it... only slow it down as much as we can so that everything else can keep up and we don't risk getting ourselves taken out in the process.
This of course presumes one a) understands evolution, b) understands that climate *will* change and c) gives a shit about things beside short-term financial gain.
Worse is when clients actively insist that you want to use whatever technology du jour.
"Oooh oooh! I've heard this mongo db thing is amazing! I want to use that!" "But... we're writing a financial application where data integrity is cri...." "MONGODB DAMMIT"
No! You are wrong! You are using OLD technology, which makes it automatically inferior to the framework that came out just this week! Oh, it has bugs? That's fine, we'll just reimplement the solution with the new framework that invariably comes out the following week!
This 'new is good old is bad' is so completely wrong, and yet it's so hard to fight against because the entire thing is based on emotional needs and desires rather than reality. And then people are surprised that modern day software is demonstrably worse than stuff written a decade or two ago, and is continuing to get worse than that.
I would add that you should be cautious. Android invented the "landfill android" market, where the tablets themselves, technically ran (maybe) whatever apps are available in the google store, but performed so shockingly badly that they weren't fit for even the most basic purposes. Hell, I (mistakenly) bought one that ended up being so terrible that it wasn't even good enough for reading books or browsing basic web pages. Also, all but the most mainstream brands got zero updates so you were screwed for security. (Even the mainstreams are iffy)
If Microsoft has allowed the same thing to happen with Windows-based tablets, then you will definitely need to do your research. As a start, don't even bother considering any tablet $300 if you want to do anything even vaguely useful with it.
The most recent generation Surface tablets are apparently very good. I know someone who has one, and they are very happy with it. They of course cost, as parent pointed out, a heck of a lot more than some Walmart special.
I can't speak for how updates are handled. I presume that since it's Windows, Microsoft pushes updates like any other desktop. (ie: whether you want them or not, and hopefully your machine won't get destroyed in the process)
You're gonna have to provide some serious citations to back up that claim, especially considering that the news has reported exactly the opposite: That the Measles outbreaks occurred in areas with high % of unvaccinated children.
Thank you for pointing out yet another example of how idiotic the whole thing is.
Email servers are the backbones of internet communication. Maybe todays JavaScript developers are happy to rip out and replace their frameworks on a monthly basis, but server administrators do not have that luxury.
Pick something that works, and leave it alone FFS.
There are a number of problems with email security that all feed back on themselves. One problem is that a shocking number of major corporations don't bother with these measures, making it pointless for anyone else to. If I set up SPF on my mail server, and a test email from none other than Google fails to arrive because their SPF records are wonky, so as a small two-bit operator I need to either disable all this nice security, or maintain an extensive whitelist for all the companies who don't do things properly. And SPF is trivial to implement compared to domainkeys.
And meanwhile, these same companies may block MY email for ridiculously arbitrary reasons. One time I had to troubleshoot why an email sent through my server didn't arrive, and it turned out that the recipient was using some kind of idiotic filter that insisted the EHLO have some kind of ridiculous format that has nothing to do with any security recommendation or in the RFC.
These wonderful doodads like DMARC are useless if nobody can be bothered to implement them, and really, why SHOULD people bother to implement them if nobody else does?
This requires everyone agreeing to work together to get this implemented, which basically guarantees that it never will.
Why should the FDA get involved? The clinics need to make a profit, after all. They may be using Stem cells the way some places claim to use quantum mechanics, but it's all just gimmick, right?
People go to all kinds of quack clinics every day. Homeopathy is a low-hanging-fruit example, but there are tons of ridiculous clinics with ridiculous "treatments" that, at their absolute best, do nothing at all.
As long as profit, emotion and dishonestly are held in higher regard than prudence and rational thought, not only will these sorts of problems continue to occur, but they are *encouraged* to continue.
I would encourage this to help weed out the stupid people, however these people tend to take down others with them (looking at you, anti-vaxxers), and it's not fair to them.
Exactly. And why is that? Nobody even tried to make it useable.
Google, Facebook, et al, have not only all made their own messengers from scratch, some have even taken *several* stabs at it. In that time, they could have just as easily created and an easy-to-use messenger that relied primarily on a full implementation of XMPP, instead of the proprietary crap they put out that did nothing more than give a passing nod to the most basic features.
So now we have a chicken and egg circular argument. Of course "nobody fucking uses it" if there there arn't any clients that make use of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish you could mod on the same discussion you post in. I would give this a +1 interesting.
This all smacks of attempts at damage control to me. They're being attacked left and right (both figuratively and politically), and their "stick our fingers in our ears" defence isn't working anymore.
So now they're all, "But... but... look at all the good we're doing!", hoping we'll ignore the fact that they kill off projects as fast as they put them out, and generally can't be trusted with anything that needs to last more than 6 months.
Are these people for real?
The whole article screams, "I don't know what I'm doing but I love jumping on bandwagons."
Apache Hadoop and Kafka are two completely different tools, intended for two COMPLETELY different workloads.
So if you used Hadoop when you should have used Kafka, that doesn't mean Hadoop is bad. It means you haven't done your job and properly vetted the tools available for suitability.
Also marked increases in bigotry/racism, violence, and don't forget general blamestorming from all quarters, the likes of which we've never seen before.
You're already required to prove that your devices are genuine, but turning them on and operating them in view of a security agent. Is that not enough?
To me this seems more of a "our existing security theatre isn't working anymore. Time to dial it up another notch" maneuver.
In other news, Bandwagon jumpers are shocked to discover that the cool new doohickey they read about in Tech Fashion Trends Magazine, doesn't actually magically fix every problem you throw it at.
Computer technology has now been around and commonplace for several decades now. It isn't knew that this stuff is complicated, and getting even more complicated with each passing year.
And yet while a client would never demand a builder use this specific kind of scaffolding and cement to build with because they read about how cool it was in some magazine, for some inexplicable reason people DO think that this is an entirely acceptable thing to do when it comes to software.
But that's ok. Customers who do this are a fantastic boon to the consulting industry. First for the slimey consultants (usually offshored to keep costs "low") that sell customers exactly what they want for, for cheap, and then for the much more expensive consultants later on who are tasked with trying to recover the steaming crater of a system the previous consultants left behind.
The problem with OS/2 wasn't technical. It was because the internal politics at IBM were so caustic that different departments had a vested interest in not letting other departments succeed, and OS/2 was seen as a threat (somehow) to the mainframe business.
OS/2 was a fantastic OS. It completely blew Windows away by pretty much every technical measure. But nobody cared cause it didn't get market share, and that was because people at IBM didn't *want* it to get marketshare.
But fast forward to today, and your point isn't unreasonable. The only ways OS/2 can be useful at this point is for people who need to maintain something very old that costs more to replace than maintain.
Which only makes me realize that I can never be a politician or a business person. I just can't bullshit people in a way that, when I spit in their eye, they just raise their arms in cheer and shout, "More!"
I was referring specifically to Google's social media nonsense. I've never relied on gmail for the exact reasons you state.
I've tried to use duckduckgo, but their search results quite simply arn't as good a lot of the time, and I am invariably forced to use google anyway. They may be unable to do anything else right, but their search tools are still the benchmark that everyone else strives to reach.
Seriously? You're really going there? Do you really have that much difficulty seeing the bigger picture here?
It was *their* choice to offer the service for free. It was *their* choice to call out to all and sundry, "Please! Use our free service!" *They* were actively encouraging, if not demanding, people use their services, to the point where google was forcibly tying their social media platforms into everything else.
Then they took it away and said, "Just kidding! Use THIS free service instead!"
Then they took it away and said, "Just kidding! Use THIS free service instead!"
Then they took it away and said, "Just kidding! Use THIS free service instead!"
The fact that it's free is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how free something is, if you can't even depend on it lasting a week before it's replaced with something else.
I personally have ZERO interest in using Google Talk, Hangouts, Allo, any other social media service they happen to come out with this particular afternoon. The only reason I ever even considered the option, is because other people I want to communicate with use it and they didn't want to use anything else.
But thanks to Google's idiocy, less and less people are relying on these services, and that suits me just fine cause I have one less service to worry about. Of course, about 40 other completely independent services have come out in the process, so it's hard to say if it's a win or not.
Messaging today has turned into a complete joke, and a large part of the blame for that can be laid on Google's doorstep for not being stable enough to put out a reliable product, and forcing people to look for alternatives.
Sounds like it's high time to completely boycott all of these stupid services that google makes.
I swear, I have never in my life met a company with such unbelievably severe, systemic organizational ADD, such that they can't seem to keep any of their services in operation for more than a few years before they get bored and try to convince everyone to change to something else.
It's to the point where I'm honestly surprised that Google Maps is still available.
Why is it *always* necessary to compare a government agency to how an equivalent private agency would run?
It's really that unbelievably difficult to understand that private business and public services operate in wildly different ways, with wildly different purposes and goals?
Do people have *any* idea how much things would cost if all government services were for profit? Either virtually every government run service would have to shut down, or be priced to the point where no one but the wealthy would be able to afford them.
If you want to argue that CSIR isn't fulfilling it's mission, that's fine. Argue away. But to argue that CSIR should be shut down because it isn't make a profit? That's just so mindbogglingly insane that it's not even wrong.
Why not apply the same criteria to every other government service? DMV? Libraries? Public schools? Roads? Emergency Services? Basic Utilities like water and sanitation? They should all be profitable or shut down! Hell, disband government entirely and make *everything* a for-profit company. You need clean water? Then you won't mind paying $10/gallon for it cause some Martin Shkreli clone wants to line his pockets.
Suddenly all you people who bitch about taxes being theft will be singing a wildly different tune. Assuming you can sing at all because you will be left financially destitute just trying to not die.
You know, a thought just occurred to me.
If people can at least agree that climate change is happening (man-caused or otherwise), can we not also agree that some form of mitigation is necessary? It's not as if climate change is an unheard of thing on our planet. That's not even the issue.
Humans are unique in that we can modify an environment to suit us, but that doesn't make us any less dependant on the other species on this planet, and so it is *still* in our best interests to keep things on as much an even keel as possible.
Species evolve slowly over time. As conditions change, animals *will* evolve. But if conditions change too quickly, then there isn't enough time to adapt and species die. So we don't necessarily need to stop it... only slow it down as much as we can so that everything else can keep up and we don't risk getting ourselves taken out in the process.
This of course presumes one a) understands evolution, b) understands that climate *will* change and c) gives a shit about things beside short-term financial gain.
Dammit, where are my mod points when I need them?! +1
Worse is when clients actively insist that you want to use whatever technology du jour.
"Oooh oooh! I've heard this mongo db thing is amazing! I want to use that!"
"But... we're writing a financial application where data integrity is cri...."
"MONGODB DAMMIT"
No! You are wrong! You are using OLD technology, which makes it automatically inferior to the framework that came out just this week! Oh, it has bugs? That's fine, we'll just reimplement the solution with the new framework that invariably comes out the following week!
This 'new is good old is bad' is so completely wrong, and yet it's so hard to fight against because the entire thing is based on emotional needs and desires rather than reality. And then people are surprised that modern day software is demonstrably worse than stuff written a decade or two ago, and is continuing to get worse than that.
I would add that you should be cautious. Android invented the "landfill android" market, where the tablets themselves, technically ran (maybe) whatever apps are available in the google store, but performed so shockingly badly that they weren't fit for even the most basic purposes. Hell, I (mistakenly) bought one that ended up being so terrible that it wasn't even good enough for reading books or browsing basic web pages. Also, all but the most mainstream brands got zero updates so you were screwed for security. (Even the mainstreams are iffy)
If Microsoft has allowed the same thing to happen with Windows-based tablets, then you will definitely need to do your research. As a start, don't even bother considering any tablet $300 if you want to do anything even vaguely useful with it.
The most recent generation Surface tablets are apparently very good. I know someone who has one, and they are very happy with it. They of course cost, as parent pointed out, a heck of a lot more than some Walmart special.
I can't speak for how updates are handled. I presume that since it's Windows, Microsoft pushes updates like any other desktop. (ie: whether you want them or not, and hopefully your machine won't get destroyed in the process)
Do they not understand that Montreal is in a different country?
You're gonna have to provide some serious citations to back up that claim, especially considering that the news has reported exactly the opposite: That the Measles outbreaks occurred in areas with high % of unvaccinated children.
Thank you for pointing out yet another example of how idiotic the whole thing is.
Email servers are the backbones of internet communication. Maybe todays JavaScript developers are happy to rip out and replace their frameworks on a monthly basis, but server administrators do not have that luxury.
Pick something that works, and leave it alone FFS.
Fuck you.
There are a number of problems with email security that all feed back on themselves. One problem is that a shocking number of major corporations don't bother with these measures, making it pointless for anyone else to. If I set up SPF on my mail server, and a test email from none other than Google fails to arrive because their SPF records are wonky, so as a small two-bit operator I need to either disable all this nice security, or maintain an extensive whitelist for all the companies who don't do things properly. And SPF is trivial to implement compared to domainkeys.
And meanwhile, these same companies may block MY email for ridiculously arbitrary reasons. One time I had to troubleshoot why an email sent through my server didn't arrive, and it turned out that the recipient was using some kind of idiotic filter that insisted the EHLO have some kind of ridiculous format that has nothing to do with any security recommendation or in the RFC.
These wonderful doodads like DMARC are useless if nobody can be bothered to implement them, and really, why SHOULD people bother to implement them if nobody else does?
This requires everyone agreeing to work together to get this implemented, which basically guarantees that it never will.
Why should the FDA get involved? The clinics need to make a profit, after all. They may be using Stem cells the way some places claim to use quantum mechanics, but it's all just gimmick, right?
People go to all kinds of quack clinics every day. Homeopathy is a low-hanging-fruit example, but there are tons of ridiculous clinics with ridiculous "treatments" that, at their absolute best, do nothing at all.
As long as profit, emotion and dishonestly are held in higher regard than prudence and rational thought, not only will these sorts of problems continue to occur, but they are *encouraged* to continue.
I would encourage this to help weed out the stupid people, however these people tend to take down others with them (looking at you, anti-vaxxers), and it's not fair to them.
Exactly. And why is that? Nobody even tried to make it useable.
Google, Facebook, et al, have not only all made their own messengers from scratch, some have even taken *several* stabs at it. In that time, they could have just as easily created and an easy-to-use messenger that relied primarily on a full implementation of XMPP, instead of the proprietary crap they put out that did nothing more than give a passing nod to the most basic features.
So now we have a chicken and egg circular argument. Of course "nobody fucking uses it" if there there arn't any clients that make use of it.
And what do we have now as a result?
This: https://xkcd.com/1810/
Yeah... It's SO much better to have literally dozen(s) of different friggin messengers on my computer/phone in order to reach everyone.
My phone gets a healthy load of my DNA several times per day, on average.
I hope that you at least wipe the screen with a disinfectant cloth after each... um... use.