No, the doomsday clock is very much meaningless. Basically it does nothing except signifies how unhappy the people who run it are with the current political climate.
Word of mouth (referrals from friends or acquaintances) Some product placement in TV and movies Sides of busses and trains Bus benches Curated ads on podcasts and public radio are pretty non-intrusive and can actually be highly relevant to the audience Billboards are generally ok in some areas (driving through South Dakota...) A single 15 - 30 second ad before and/or after the TV episode is generally ok... more than 1, or several throughout is tedious Static (non-animated, no sound) banner ads are ok in small quantities
I mean, really, advertising is all around us already and a lot of it is fine. It's just that enough is never good enough. Advertisers always want to go up 1 higher... and that is where the pushback is coming from. We have reached 11 now and it is too damned loud.
You have to be careful these days. There absolutely exists ad network deployed malware which will attempt to log in to your home router using default credentials in order to upload custom firmware or change stuff like DNS settings.
Pretty much any filesystem since before MSDOS only unlinks the file, not really deletes it.
Yeah, nice try.
Except that if this was the case, you would almost certainly not be able to restore 8 year old files. How many times do you think they have updated their storage systems in the last 8 years? I am guessing the answer is more than 0.
You are right, of course. However, the same could be said about bank safety deposit boxes as well, but those are generally accepted as "safer than your mattress" (which is entirely under your control) even though law enforcement can get access to them.
It seems ridiculously unlikely that this sort of thing could go on for 8 years without anyone noticing. If nothing else, the need for constantly increasing storage should have made someone wonder what was going on./quote
Yes, exactly what I was thinking. The cat's out of the bag now. Dropbox can say whatever they want, the evidence is pretty clear: files were kept for 8 years at least (otherwise they couldn't be restored).
I am sure there are lots of reasons for cloud providers not to delete your data. It is just too valuable a tool to delete. You can gain all kinds of insights about your users from the data they upload. Whether their motivation is benign or not, it doesn't matter, the truth is that once a file leaves your computer it is no longer yours.
You aren't leaving yourself any room for expansion in the future.... what is the next speed increase going to be marketed as? super ultra? ultimate ultra?
Why is it that companies that are nominally in competition with each other, and even face off against each other in court, can so easily co-operate with each other on new tech initiatives?
My guess is:
1. Large companies are made up of many people and lots of departments under different leaderships 2. Open standards help everyone make money when the technology is new (you can take a gamble that your solution is the one to take off, but that is far from a guarantee. More likely you will be undercut by a smaller, more agile company. So better to head that possibility off at the pass.) 3. It is more efficient to not waste a bunch of effort in parallel development (cost savings for everyone on R&D since all research is pooled) 4. It is good PR
I know what you mean. I don't generally rate apps because I don't find app reviews to be all that useful in the first place since most people seem to blindly or subjectively rate.
My general practice has always been to hit the "rate me" link when asked, but then close the appstore without leaving a review just so it stops bugging me.
However, it has even gotten to the point where newer apps are periodically checking to see if you actually did leave a review and throw the nag if you haven't.... that kind of practice makes me want to punch the dev in the face. I am not here to promote or review your app.
Then again, I am a FF die hard. The only things Chrome seems to do better than FF is chromecasting and streaming DRM content on Linux.
It seems like Chrome has about as many plugins as FF now, but the Chrome versions of plugins never allow seamless integration with the browser interface. It always seems more cumbersome to use Chrome plugins than the equivalent FF plugins.
Not really sure why people love Chrome so much. I use all the major browsers regularly and I just don't see a huge reason to use Chrome exclusively over the others.
Not sure how you can justify the notion that Windows 7 is ok but Windows 10 is crap.
They are basically the same OS. The only real difference is the UI. This has been more or less true since Windows 2000. The kernel (the thing that you call Windows) hasn't been rewritten from scratch with every new OS iteration.
You need to look no further than the Windows Updates for proof. The fact that the same vulnerabilities are present in several versions of Windows shows that they share a lot of code.
As for the stability of Windows 10, it seems as stable as Windows 7 in all of our internal testing. We have rolled out Windows 10 to some laptops and our conference room computers so far. It is perfectly stable with Skype for Business loaded. Windows 10 has superior display scaling capability over Windows 7 or even 8 so it works better for us on large displays (conference rooms and 4k monitors) than Windows 7 ever did.
It's just Windows... and it works where Windows always has before. Obviously, you use what works best for each situation.
Now, the aggressive pushing that MS is doing through Windows 10 certainly is annoying. But at the end of the day, it is just another configuration data point in your overall rollout plan (Step: Registry/GPO tweaks to turn off X, Y and Z)
It is arguable that Linux is easy enough now to install that anyone can do it.
You don't have to stick with the OS your computer came with.
Also, you can buy cheap Chromebooks or Raspberry Pi computers.
In addition to all of that, iOS and Android have made significant inroads into general computing. Many people don't even have a traditional computer any longer, they just use their phone or tablet.
There are lots of choices available today that weren't there 20 years ago.
Meh, it's a browser. They are a dime a dozen these days.
As a matter of fact, there are so many browsers I can assign a different use case to each one.
FF is my daily driver. It is also the most locked down with NoScript and several other privacy add-ons Chrome is my multimedia browser (Netflix, etc) IE/Edge is my work browser (remote access to company stuff) Opera is my side project work browser (I keep various Google docs and stuff auto-loaded when this browser opens)
Chrome and Edge are generally also my "cross reference" browsers to verify a site's functionality when it doesn't work in FF with all my extensions that tend to break stuff.
They might have been (and were, in a few cases) threatened by governments 20 years ago, but not today.
MS no longer has the monopoly on computer operating systems. Therefor they have no need to be as wary about anti-competitive behaviors since people have several choices now, some of them even being free.
Apparently they weren't competent enough to separate public terminals from the rest of the network though... There is just no reason that 16,000 computers should be affected by a single bit of malware. That is poor network design imo.
I want to know who decided to put the PUBLIC TERMINALS on the same network as the administrative computers. Not only that, but malware like this needs write access to network shares. So not only were ALL computers on the same network, the public terminals utilized user accounts that had write access to the same network shares as the administrative computers... unbelievable...
Slashdot Mirror
Or... he could have just been playing on your sympathy in order to get the MVP parking spot....
Honesty is the best policy no matter what.
Unless government and/or the people living there deny that global warming is happening....
No, the doomsday clock is very much meaningless. Basically it does nothing except signifies how unhappy the people who run it are with the current political climate.
So, it's like amber alerts then?
There are lots of ads that are fine.
Word of mouth (referrals from friends or acquaintances)
Some product placement in TV and movies
Sides of busses and trains
Bus benches
Curated ads on podcasts and public radio are pretty non-intrusive and can actually be highly relevant to the audience
Billboards are generally ok in some areas (driving through South Dakota...)
A single 15 - 30 second ad before and/or after the TV episode is generally ok... more than 1, or several throughout is tedious
Static (non-animated, no sound) banner ads are ok in small quantities
I mean, really, advertising is all around us already and a lot of it is fine. It's just that enough is never good enough. Advertisers always want to go up 1 higher... and that is where the pushback is coming from. We have reached 11 now and it is too damned loud.
I was going to chime in with exactly this.
You have to be careful these days. There absolutely exists ad network deployed malware which will attempt to log in to your home router using default credentials in order to upload custom firmware or change stuff like DNS settings.
Are you using your Jump to Conclusions mat again? I thought we burned that thing...
Pretty much any filesystem since before MSDOS only unlinks the file, not really deletes it.
Yeah, nice try.
Except that if this was the case, you would almost certainly not be able to restore 8 year old files. How many times do you think they have updated their storage systems in the last 8 years? I am guessing the answer is more than 0.
You are right, of course. However, the same could be said about bank safety deposit boxes as well, but those are generally accepted as "safer than your mattress" (which is entirely under your control) even though law enforcement can get access to them.
It seems ridiculously unlikely that this sort of thing could go on for 8 years without anyone noticing. If nothing else, the need for constantly increasing storage should have made someone wonder what was going on./quote
Yes, exactly what I was thinking. The cat's out of the bag now. Dropbox can say whatever they want, the evidence is pretty clear: files were kept for 8 years at least (otherwise they couldn't be restored).
I am sure there are lots of reasons for cloud providers not to delete your data. It is just too valuable a tool to delete. You can gain all kinds of insights about your users from the data they upload. Whether their motivation is benign or not, it doesn't matter, the truth is that once a file leaves your computer it is no longer yours.
Even if it would work in humans, we will likely never see it happen because of the embryo thing
To achieve this feat, researchers injected mouse pluripotent stem cells into a rat embryo
Harvesting human embryos would probably not go over well in this country (US)
I always wonder about the use of the term "Ultra"
You aren't leaving yourself any room for expansion in the future.... what is the next speed increase going to be marketed as? super ultra? ultimate ultra?
That is sort of the definition of Skynet, isn't it?
Skynet certainly wouldn't be as threatening an overlord if it was siloed in one platform...
Why is it that companies that are nominally in competition with each other, and even face off against each other in court, can so easily co-operate with each other on new tech initiatives?
My guess is:
1. Large companies are made up of many people and lots of departments under different leaderships
2. Open standards help everyone make money when the technology is new (you can take a gamble that your solution is the one to take off, but that is far from a guarantee. More likely you will be undercut by a smaller, more agile company. So better to head that possibility off at the pass.)
3. It is more efficient to not waste a bunch of effort in parallel development (cost savings for everyone on R&D since all research is pooled)
4. It is good PR
If it was a complete rewrite then how can their be the exact same bugs in all versions of Windows from XP through 10?
This is where install-base numbers might be useful.
Just have the appstore description state how many user's have this app installed.
Of course, this would require telemetry... which we all know is evil incarnate...
I know what you mean. I don't generally rate apps because I don't find app reviews to be all that useful in the first place since most people seem to blindly or subjectively rate.
My general practice has always been to hit the "rate me" link when asked, but then close the appstore without leaving a review just so it stops bugging me.
However, it has even gotten to the point where newer apps are periodically checking to see if you actually did leave a review and throw the nag if you haven't.... that kind of practice makes me want to punch the dev in the face. I am not here to promote or review your app.
I use FF on my mobile devices as well.
Then again, I am a FF die hard. The only things Chrome seems to do better than FF is chromecasting and streaming DRM content on Linux.
It seems like Chrome has about as many plugins as FF now, but the Chrome versions of plugins never allow seamless integration with the browser interface. It always seems more cumbersome to use Chrome plugins than the equivalent FF plugins.
Not really sure why people love Chrome so much. I use all the major browsers regularly and I just don't see a huge reason to use Chrome exclusively over the others.
Not sure how you can justify the notion that Windows 7 is ok but Windows 10 is crap.
They are basically the same OS. The only real difference is the UI. This has been more or less true since Windows 2000. The kernel (the thing that you call Windows) hasn't been rewritten from scratch with every new OS iteration.
You need to look no further than the Windows Updates for proof. The fact that the same vulnerabilities are present in several versions of Windows shows that they share a lot of code.
As for the stability of Windows 10, it seems as stable as Windows 7 in all of our internal testing. We have rolled out Windows 10 to some laptops and our conference room computers so far. It is perfectly stable with Skype for Business loaded. Windows 10 has superior display scaling capability over Windows 7 or even 8 so it works better for us on large displays (conference rooms and 4k monitors) than Windows 7 ever did.
It's just Windows... and it works where Windows always has before. Obviously, you use what works best for each situation.
Now, the aggressive pushing that MS is doing through Windows 10 certainly is annoying. But at the end of the day, it is just another configuration data point in your overall rollout plan (Step: Registry/GPO tweaks to turn off X, Y and Z)
It is arguable that Linux is easy enough now to install that anyone can do it.
You don't have to stick with the OS your computer came with.
Also, you can buy cheap Chromebooks or Raspberry Pi computers.
In addition to all of that, iOS and Android have made significant inroads into general computing. Many people don't even have a traditional computer any longer, they just use their phone or tablet.
There are lots of choices available today that weren't there 20 years ago.
It is for this reason that I unpinned Edge from the task bar. Those notifications were pretty annoying.
Meh, it's a browser. They are a dime a dozen these days.
As a matter of fact, there are so many browsers I can assign a different use case to each one.
FF is my daily driver. It is also the most locked down with NoScript and several other privacy add-ons
Chrome is my multimedia browser (Netflix, etc)
IE/Edge is my work browser (remote access to company stuff)
Opera is my side project work browser (I keep various Google docs and stuff auto-loaded when this browser opens)
Chrome and Edge are generally also my "cross reference" browsers to verify a site's functionality when it doesn't work in FF with all my extensions that tend to break stuff.
They might have been (and were, in a few cases) threatened by governments 20 years ago, but not today.
MS no longer has the monopoly on computer operating systems. Therefor they have no need to be as wary about anti-competitive behaviors since people have several choices now, some of them even being free.
Yeah, not sure where I got the 16,000 number from. Even still, my comment stands. Just substitute 16,000 with the actual number of 700.
Apparently they weren't competent enough to separate public terminals from the rest of the network though... There is just no reason that 16,000 computers should be affected by a single bit of malware. That is poor network design imo.
I want to know who decided to put the PUBLIC TERMINALS on the same network as the administrative computers. Not only that, but malware like this needs write access to network shares. So not only were ALL computers on the same network, the public terminals utilized user accounts that had write access to the same network shares as the administrative computers... unbelievable...