I would say it's like switching to a cordless mouse. You really don't want to go back.
I use both wired and wireless headphones and mice, and I haven't experienced that "you don't want to go back" thing at all. Wireless mice aren't any better than wired ones, except in mobile applications, so that's a wash. Wireless headphones are inferior.
Personally, I don't understand why people who aren't into photography care about the quality of a cell phone camera. I imagine that 99% of the time, the camera is being used to take pictures to post on a social media site anyway, where top-notch picture quality won't be noticed.
I take the odd picture here and there, but honestly, I'd be fine if my phone didn't have a camera at all.
I'm thinking that we're looking at about 20 years before driverless cars consist of at least half of traveled miles, assuming that the research projects don't hit a showstopper problem.
"The human error was that the individual who's responsible for communicating in the organization to apply the patch, did not,"
What a scummy thing to say, and he doesn't even realize that the statement makes Equifax look even worse.
With a couple of hundred people on the security team, the idea that it's a single person's responsibility to tell everyone to apply a patch is ludicrous. If it's true, then that's institutional incompetence.
I've been working in computer security for years, and do you know what I and all of my coworkers do? We keep up on computer security developments, particularly newly discovered vulnerabilities. And we discuss them. And send emails about them.
Even if the one team (not individual) who is responsible for ensuring that our own systems are patched for some reason fails to do that job, there is exactly zero chance that this would go unnoticed.
If that's not how it works at Equifax, that's the fault of Equifax, not some single individual.
Before I automated it, my process was to manually turn WiFi on when needed. Which I still do when I'm out and about. There are a couple of places, though, where I always want it on, because it's always in use when I'm there -- that's the part I automated.
The actual automation "script" itself is very simple -- it took about 5 minutes to create and test. Once created, it makes things even simpler as I don't have to manually turn the WiFi on those places where I want it on, and I don't have to remember to turn it off when I leave those places.
however a whole scale insurrection with 50%ish citizens in both north and south would not be quelled so easily by the US military
That would be true even if the citizens weren't well-armed.
But such an event is so unlikely as to be approximately impossible. Historically, it's exceedingly rare that you get half of a citizenry to take up arms against their government, regardless of how oppressive the government is.
Maybe I've just never hit a site that uses tab-unders, then, but I've not encountered a situation where I had to allow a new tab to happen in order to see content on the first tab. If I did, though, I'd just leave the site and never return -- so it's possible that I did encounter this and have simply forgotten.
NoScript does a lot more than just block Javascript. It blocks many types of web-based shenanigans, such as cross-site-scripting attacks, clickjacking, etc. And even if we're just talking about blocking Javascript, it is far more flexible than any of the things I've seen built into browsers.
Chrome doesn't come close to being as good. There aren't even any extensions for Chrome that approaches it.
Yeah, I misread your comment. Sorry about that. I was really hoping you'd spoken with them and was interested in what they said -- but I guess I'll have to wait.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I flew, they specifically said to turn the devices off, and that flight mode doesn't cut it.
I would say it's like switching to a cordless mouse. You really don't want to go back.
I use both wired and wireless headphones and mice, and I haven't experienced that "you don't want to go back" thing at all. Wireless mice aren't any better than wired ones, except in mobile applications, so that's a wash. Wireless headphones are inferior.
because I assume the audio quality will be better.
Why would you assume that?
Exactly.
Personally, I don't understand why people who aren't into photography care about the quality of a cell phone camera. I imagine that 99% of the time, the camera is being used to take pictures to post on a social media site anyway, where top-notch picture quality won't be noticed.
I take the odd picture here and there, but honestly, I'd be fine if my phone didn't have a camera at all.
My phone has its SD slot on the inside. It isn't an issue at all.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy a mule.
Yes, an SD slot is also mandatory. Personally, I don't care about getting security (or other) updates, though.
It's a dealbreaker for me. I won't be owning a Pixel.
Personally, I don't care about the amount of the contract. If it were for $100, that would make it no less objectionable.
The serious problem here is hiring a company who is demonstrably incapable of detecting or preventing fraud in a role of fraud prevention.
I'm not so sure how effective that would be. In most of the places that I've worked, nobody takes vacation time unless management forces them to.
Yes, this is true. One of the signs of someone who lacks integrity is that they finger-point when the shit hits the fan.
In this particular case, though, I think it's worse than just finger-pointing. I think he's straight-up lying.
I'll bet that you will see them in your lifetime.
I'm thinking that we're looking at about 20 years before driverless cars consist of at least half of traveled miles, assuming that the research projects don't hit a showstopper problem.
The Ex-CEO, talking about the guys who cashed in their stock, said (from TFA):
I’ve know these individual for up to 12 years. They’re men of integrity.
First, his comments about the "one individual" demonstrates that he himself isn't a man of integrity, so his vouching for them means nothing.
Second, "men of integrity"? Hahahahahahaha!
"The human error was that the individual who's responsible for communicating in the organization to apply the patch, did not,"
What a scummy thing to say, and he doesn't even realize that the statement makes Equifax look even worse.
With a couple of hundred people on the security team, the idea that it's a single person's responsibility to tell everyone to apply a patch is ludicrous. If it's true, then that's institutional incompetence.
I've been working in computer security for years, and do you know what I and all of my coworkers do? We keep up on computer security developments, particularly newly discovered vulnerabilities. And we discuss them. And send emails about them.
Even if the one team (not individual) who is responsible for ensuring that our own systems are patched for some reason fails to do that job, there is exactly zero chance that this would go unnoticed.
If that's not how it works at Equifax, that's the fault of Equifax, not some single individual.
Sure it is.
Before I automated it, my process was to manually turn WiFi on when needed. Which I still do when I'm out and about. There are a couple of places, though, where I always want it on, because it's always in use when I'm there -- that's the part I automated.
The actual automation "script" itself is very simple -- it took about 5 minutes to create and test. Once created, it makes things even simpler as I don't have to manually turn the WiFi on those places where I want it on, and I don't have to remember to turn it off when I leave those places.
Same argument as in 1765, look how that turned out.
The revolutionary war wasn't won because of a well-armed citizenry. The citizenry was actually poorly armed, poorly equipped, and poorly funded.
It was won because of the support of foreign powers who were using the revolutionaries as pawn in a proxy war against England.
Despite all the claims that the Second somehow acts as a barrier to tyranny, it's questionable whether it really does.
I don't think it's questionable at all. I think that the bulk of world history shows quite clearly that there's no question about it: it doesn't.
Which, while still nutty, is much less nutty than the notion that it would be of much help if you want to engage in war against the government.
however a whole scale insurrection with 50%ish citizens in both north and south would not be quelled so easily by the US military
That would be true even if the citizens weren't well-armed.
But such an event is so unlikely as to be approximately impossible. Historically, it's exceedingly rare that you get half of a citizenry to take up arms against their government, regardless of how oppressive the government is.
Maybe I've just never hit a site that uses tab-unders, then, but I've not encountered a situation where I had to allow a new tab to happen in order to see content on the first tab. If I did, though, I'd just leave the site and never return -- so it's possible that I did encounter this and have simply forgotten.
NoScript does a lot more than just block Javascript. It blocks many types of web-based shenanigans, such as cross-site-scripting attacks, clickjacking, etc. And even if we're just talking about blocking Javascript, it is far more flexible than any of the things I've seen built into browsers.
Chrome doesn't come close to being as good. There aren't even any extensions for Chrome that approaches it.
But 4chan is far from being either form of shit.
This is a point that I doubt we'll ever agree on.
I've never seen "tab-unders". Thank you, NoScript!
Yeah, I misread your comment. Sorry about that. I was really hoping you'd spoken with them and was interested in what they said -- but I guess I'll have to wait. :)
It's not an order, though. It's just the judge expressing his personal desire.