As a systemd evangelist, I'd have expected you to have a much better idea of what really constitutes a disaster.
Interesting. You don't know how to accurately define disaster... or the meaning of evangelist. Maybe English isn't for you. Have you tried a less complicated language with shorter words?
Thanks. I'm glad we got your clear definition of disaster meaning someone dies or an entire company goes out of business.
Every other dictionary and definition in the world didn't make it clearly as black and white as you did. We have you to thank for clearing up the entire english language. I am in awe just to even be speaking to you.
When it first came out I'd see countless people walking around outside waving their phones around.
Of course. The initial start was an incredible fad. Now it just settled back down to the usual fan base who play the most popular current game in a 20 year old franchise. It has a healthy user base just like any other popular game on the market you don't see people play.
Fast forward to today and my teenage neice and nephew dont have a single friend who still plays and literally every person who i knew who played no longer does.
Congratulations. I also don't know anyone who plays WoW so that must not be a thing anymore either right?
You should take public transport sometime. I see people literally everywhere, even when I was in the USA 3 weeks ago, so it's not just a EU thing.
Are software companies somehow immune from hiring competent event planners?
Competent in what? Precisely what kind of event has taken place before where 20000 people simultaneously need to use data from the same area. It's easy from the IT sidelines to see the obvious, but given an event with these requirements hasn't happened before, just how were a bunch of "competent event planners" (I hear that's a uni degree now) supposed to know the what they don't know without precedence?
If that's the "disaster" you got out of this story then you need reading comprehension skills. How about a $400000 event ending in not a profit, but rather a $200000 additional loss as everyone needed to be refunded and also compensated?
Thousands of people turning up to watch a group kick a ball around? Thousands of people going to a shopping centre on sale day?
Frankly I'm more disappointed in the 100s of thousands of people who are vegetating in front of the TV or "disappointed" in their fellow people Slashdot.
Why? The game has been continuously developed to the point where you now need to form teams and have group battles. They keep making changes to the gameplay in an attempt to keep it fresh, and judging by the fact that pretty much every event is a sellout in minutes it's working quite well.
they'd learn a thing or two about capacity planning
What capacity? The launch issues were due to server capacity. These issues were not really within control of the company and had everything to do with the mobile network falling over.
Though they could have co-ordinates with Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to try and get a shitload of microcells set up. But in general what prior experience was there? When has an event with 20000 people who specifically require mobile data coverage at the same time ever been done before?
The green lock only appears for sites with Extended Validation.
No it doesn't.
Domain Validation only requires that you control the domain to get the cert. It doesn't give you a green lock.
Yes it does.
Organization Validation has some checks and requires proof of control of the domain. It doesn't give you a green lock.
Yes it does.
Your advice is only true for users of Microsoft browsers and covers 20% of the market share. The green lock is provided to any encrypted connection with a valid certificate chain in Firefox, Chrome, and Safari. The entire concept of telling people to look at a colour or a symbol was completely stupid in the first place as colour doesn't convey information of "who" but only "what". If someone incorrectly gets an EV certificate due to an oversight at a CA (happens often enough) then this can be identified with actual text but not with colour alone.
Modern browsers use the colour to identify encryption and certificate validity and then use actual verified text to identify the organisation the certificate was issued to (for OV and EV certs). e.g. https://www.slashdot.org/ - Green lock "Secure" https://www.bankofamerica.com/ - Green lock "Bank of America Corporation [US]
The outlier is Internet Explorer 11 and Edge which only uses the green colour on an EV certificate, but otherwise still provides EV information in the address bar like all the other browsers.
So yes, they should be criticized, but they should be criticized for the ridiculously short certificate expiration times
Why? The only reason to have long certificate expiration times is to reduce manual labour. When the system is scripted, renewal fully automated and doesn't cost anything, why would you critisize shot expiration times?
No. Secured was never ment to mean 'Encryypted', it was ment 'encrypted and you're talking to who you think you are'
And it does 100%. The word "Secure" and the little lock show up when a server proves via the certificate chain that they are who they are addressed in the address bar. Nothing more.
Your problem is you expect the computer to not follow your instruction, but rather interface with your brain. How is the computer supposed to know that when you address www.bankof4merica.com that you didn't actually want to talk to the scammer but actually wanted to talk to www.bankofamerica.com. If you told your mother the little green lock is proof of that, then you have been giving out very poor advice.
When long time users point out very real and very unacceptable problems involving open source software, they're immediately mislabeled as "trolls", or they're attacked in some other way.
No. You're not a troll and long time users aren't trolls either. What you are is a classic textbook case of someone resistant to any form of change to the point where change is bad so you can't see why a change occurred and thus obscure the good that has occurred because of it. Not only that with this typical example you end up with an increasingly rose coloured view of the past.
Go ahead. Fire up that Linux distro from the 90s. IF you can get your network card going on that ancient kernel, IF you can get your video card up and running, IF the ancient version of X will happily display a graphic on your LCD without skewing the image then maybe, just maybe, you'll last a few minutes before your computer is taken over by hundreds of script kiddies exploiting any of the thousand CVEs that have been published for Linux and fixed over the past 2 decades.
Now if you're lucky and that doesn't happen then what. What will you do? You won't be visiting much of the internet because that won't work. You certainly won't be using a productivity or office suite because that was just a steaming turd back then. Hell you'll be spending more time working through frustrating interface bugs and spending time trying to get your computer to actually work for you, a reputation that Linux had well deserved back in those days on the desktop.
Even if you don't want to use it on the desktop, what are you going to serve up? Ancient NFS shares with all their exploits from early versions? SMB shares with SMB v1 protocol which many people are disabling? Website which don't support any dynamic content or scripting with an Apache version so out of date it basically screams to any passer by "take me bigboy, I'm yours!" Maybe a print server for a printer you won't have drivers for?
Technology has changed and gotten far more complicated. Linux has moved with the changes. Part of those changes were made because it was a frigging nightmare to the point where no sane person would inflict the terror of recommending a non-techy person even attempt to run Linux on a desktop system in the 90s. Where are we now? A suitable alternative?
By the way speaking of your communities: - The Firefox project abandoned the community, you are absolutely right. - The Gnome project addressed it's fundamental short comings of Gnome being a borderline unconfigurable mess of settings. They adapted to a changing world by giving new users a simple and easy to use desktop knowing full well that techies will happily switch to the many other DEs because they want their lives to remain complicated. - The systemd project was just the most successful of the many attempts to replace a broken system that didn't suit the workloads of a modern machine, not on the desktop, the laptop, or the server. - The Debian project.... Not sure what you're talking about. Debian has never been bigger and more important and they make their decisions on technical grounds, many of which users refuse to put the effort into understanding.
So you say it's inexcusably and wrong that a VBScript is affecting Linux. I say fucking finally Linux is able to actually run a variety of Windows software to the point where it is a suitable alternative OS. By the way the bug was found and fixed on the same day. A sad state for the OS indeed!
Why? I mean we get asked for contact details so often by companies who have no interest in contacting us for anything other than to send us spam. I often just enter the first two words words that come into my head. For a while there was a Bob Dylan record laying next to the computer. I really hope his email isn't bob@dylan.com because he would have been signed up for a shitload of stuff.
Just like every web form that verifies post codes in the state ultimately has a disproportionately high number of users from Beverly Hills, many thanks to the the TV show Beverly Hills 90210. It's the only valid USA post code that a lot of people know.
If this person has used your e-mail for his sign-ups, it should be possible for you to take over their accounts by doing password reset.
He's not. He's clearly giving out this email for things he doesn't care about or wants to use as a burner. Otherwise he'd never get the activation emails in the first place.
Reports are just international power masturbation. They have no relevance into how far anyone is in any program. Both sides have been working on hyper-sonic missiles for 10 years already. How far along either side is is known only to a select few with just enough information in the media to let either side know the other side thinks its ahead.
Except for the Russians, because Trump wouldn't keep secrets from his BFF Putin.
This right here. Audio recording abilities are good enough to essentially discern the sound of a person quietly breathing while a military jet is taking off next to you with full afterburner. We didn't even have practical dynamic range limits in the audio world back in the CD days. Our ears just aren't that good at picking differences in dynamic range. When blood is pouring out of our ears we won't be complaining about not being able to hear someone breathing.
The problem does exist with digital imaging though on even the highest end cameras. The problem being the our eyes ARE that good in that our entire vision isn't at one fixed exposure. We can stare into the sun and still discern it is yellow against the blue sky while making out what is moving in the shadows. Even high end cameras still have a long way to go before they can match that.
However the biggest problem here is final image processing. The best algorithms in the world don't solve what studios do to modern music. The best algorithms in cameras don't currently apply a dynamic range curve that matches what we physically see.
The readout noise is statistically quite random. This process is used in astronomy precisely toe *reduce* the noise floor.
However you did touch on one thing: read-out circuitry. One of the problems comes in the speed of reading out the data. The better the readout quality the slower it is normally performed on the sensor. By reading out multiple times a millisecond you're going to severely impact performance.
Yes and no. HDR is just a term to describe more dynamic range than you can capture. The traditional HDR process relies on different images with different exposure times, short to capture bright data without saturation, and long to bring faint data above the noise floor.
The GP is talking about combining lots of identical exposures and then mathematically combining them to reduce the noise floor. This is used a lot in astronomy, and yes those pictures could be described as having "high dynamic range".
Image quality is a bit worse, but read-out noise is statistically random and will across multiple iterations be reduced as the data is combined into a final image.
Slashdot Mirror
As a systemd evangelist, I'd have expected you to have a much better idea of what really constitutes a disaster.
Interesting. You don't know how to accurately define disaster ... or the meaning of evangelist. Maybe English isn't for you. Have you tried a less complicated language with shorter words?
Thanks. I'm glad we got your clear definition of disaster meaning someone dies or an entire company goes out of business.
Every other dictionary and definition in the world didn't make it clearly as black and white as you did. We have you to thank for clearing up the entire english language. I am in awe just to even be speaking to you.
At the end of your life you can think about all the useful stuff you've done in your life.
I'll think about the countless lives I've lived, and worlds I've seen.
Wow are you implying that humans are capable of only doing one thing and it's an either or choice? Man your brain is limited.
When it first came out I'd see countless people walking around outside waving their phones around.
Of course. The initial start was an incredible fad. Now it just settled back down to the usual fan base who play the most popular current game in a 20 year old franchise. It has a healthy user base just like any other popular game on the market you don't see people play.
Fast forward to today and my teenage neice and nephew dont have a single friend who still plays and literally every person who i knew who played no longer does.
Congratulations. I also don't know anyone who plays WoW so that must not be a thing anymore either right?
You should take public transport sometime. I see people literally everywhere, even when I was in the USA 3 weeks ago, so it's not just a EU thing.
Are software companies somehow immune from hiring competent event planners?
Competent in what? Precisely what kind of event has taken place before where 20000 people simultaneously need to use data from the same area. It's easy from the IT sidelines to see the obvious, but given an event with these requirements hasn't happened before, just how were a bunch of "competent event planners" (I hear that's a uni degree now) supposed to know the what they don't know without precedence?
Or maybe an accidental oversight caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses for Niantic.
I can think of far lesser things that qualify for the title of disaster.
not the failure to catch a rare pokemon.
If that's the "disaster" you got out of this story then you need reading comprehension skills. How about a $400000 event ending in not a profit, but rather a $200000 additional loss as everyone needed to be refunded and also compensated?
As opposed to what?
Thousands of people turning up to watch a group kick a ball around?
Thousands of people going to a shopping centre on sale day?
Frankly I'm more disappointed in the 100s of thousands of people who are vegetating in front of the TV or "disappointed" in their fellow people Slashdot.
Why? The game has been continuously developed to the point where you now need to form teams and have group battles. They keep making changes to the gameplay in an attempt to keep it fresh, and judging by the fact that pretty much every event is a sellout in minutes it's working quite well.
I can't believe people still play Counter Strike.
they'd learn a thing or two about capacity planning
What capacity? The launch issues were due to server capacity. These issues were not really within control of the company and had everything to do with the mobile network falling over.
Though they could have co-ordinates with Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to try and get a shitload of microcells set up. But in general what prior experience was there? When has an event with 20000 people who specifically require mobile data coverage at the same time ever been done before?
The green lock only appears for sites with Extended Validation.
No it doesn't.
Domain Validation only requires that you control the domain to get the cert. It doesn't give you a green lock.
Yes it does.
Organization Validation has some checks and requires proof of control of the domain. It doesn't give you a green lock.
Yes it does.
Your advice is only true for users of Microsoft browsers and covers 20% of the market share. The green lock is provided to any encrypted connection with a valid certificate chain in Firefox, Chrome, and Safari. The entire concept of telling people to look at a colour or a symbol was completely stupid in the first place as colour doesn't convey information of "who" but only "what". If someone incorrectly gets an EV certificate due to an oversight at a CA (happens often enough) then this can be identified with actual text but not with colour alone.
Modern browsers use the colour to identify encryption and certificate validity and then use actual verified text to identify the organisation the certificate was issued to (for OV and EV certs).
e.g.
https://www.slashdot.org/ - Green lock "Secure"
https://www.bankofamerica.com/ - Green lock "Bank of America Corporation [US]
The outlier is Internet Explorer 11 and Edge which only uses the green colour on an EV certificate, but otherwise still provides EV information in the address bar like all the other browsers.
So yes, they should be criticized, but they should be criticized for the ridiculously short certificate expiration times
Why? The only reason to have long certificate expiration times is to reduce manual labour. When the system is scripted, renewal fully automated and doesn't cost anything, why would you critisize shot expiration times?
No. Secured was never ment to mean 'Encryypted', it was ment 'encrypted and you're talking to who you think you are'
And it does 100%. The word "Secure" and the little lock show up when a server proves via the certificate chain that they are who they are addressed in the address bar. Nothing more.
Your problem is you expect the computer to not follow your instruction, but rather interface with your brain. How is the computer supposed to know that when you address www.bankof4merica.com that you didn't actually want to talk to the scammer but actually wanted to talk to www.bankofamerica.com. If you told your mother the little green lock is proof of that, then you have been giving out very poor advice.
When long time users point out very real and very unacceptable problems involving open source software, they're immediately mislabeled as "trolls", or they're attacked in some other way.
No. You're not a troll and long time users aren't trolls either. What you are is a classic textbook case of someone resistant to any form of change to the point where change is bad so you can't see why a change occurred and thus obscure the good that has occurred because of it. Not only that with this typical example you end up with an increasingly rose coloured view of the past.
Go ahead. Fire up that Linux distro from the 90s. IF you can get your network card going on that ancient kernel, IF you can get your video card up and running, IF the ancient version of X will happily display a graphic on your LCD without skewing the image then maybe, just maybe, you'll last a few minutes before your computer is taken over by hundreds of script kiddies exploiting any of the thousand CVEs that have been published for Linux and fixed over the past 2 decades.
Now if you're lucky and that doesn't happen then what. What will you do? You won't be visiting much of the internet because that won't work. You certainly won't be using a productivity or office suite because that was just a steaming turd back then. Hell you'll be spending more time working through frustrating interface bugs and spending time trying to get your computer to actually work for you, a reputation that Linux had well deserved back in those days on the desktop.
Even if you don't want to use it on the desktop, what are you going to serve up? Ancient NFS shares with all their exploits from early versions? SMB shares with SMB v1 protocol which many people are disabling? Website which don't support any dynamic content or scripting with an Apache version so out of date it basically screams to any passer by "take me bigboy, I'm yours!" Maybe a print server for a printer you won't have drivers for?
Technology has changed and gotten far more complicated. Linux has moved with the changes. Part of those changes were made because it was a frigging nightmare to the point where no sane person would inflict the terror of recommending a non-techy person even attempt to run Linux on a desktop system in the 90s. Where are we now? A suitable alternative?
By the way speaking of your communities:
- The Firefox project abandoned the community, you are absolutely right.
- The Gnome project addressed it's fundamental short comings of Gnome being a borderline unconfigurable mess of settings. They adapted to a changing world by giving new users a simple and easy to use desktop knowing full well that techies will happily switch to the many other DEs because they want their lives to remain complicated.
- The systemd project was just the most successful of the many attempts to replace a broken system that didn't suit the workloads of a modern machine, not on the desktop, the laptop, or the server.
- The Debian project.... Not sure what you're talking about. Debian has never been bigger and more important and they make their decisions on technical grounds, many of which users refuse to put the effort into understanding.
So you say it's inexcusably and wrong that a VBScript is affecting Linux. I say fucking finally Linux is able to actually run a variety of Windows software to the point where it is a suitable alternative OS. By the way the bug was found and fixed on the same day. A sad state for the OS indeed!
how many websites take @name.local as valid email addresses.
You just inspired me. It's time to see how many times admin@siteIamvisiting.com will be accepted.
Maybe some humans suck at making up junk data. I happen to be good at it!
Your username is Anonymous Coward. It's about the most common username on this site. You lack originality!
you're the ignorant one who didn't understand when there was a joke, Squidward
Oh ... he he.? Don't become a comedian. You suck at it*.
*Not a heckle, just honest feedback.
Why? I mean we get asked for contact details so often by companies who have no interest in contacting us for anything other than to send us spam. I often just enter the first two words words that come into my head. For a while there was a Bob Dylan record laying next to the computer. I really hope his email isn't bob@dylan.com because he would have been signed up for a shitload of stuff.
Just like every web form that verifies post codes in the state ultimately has a disproportionately high number of users from Beverly Hills, many thanks to the the TV show Beverly Hills 90210. It's the only valid USA post code that a lot of people know.
Humans suck at making up junk data.
I did read the article; guess again, Squidward
Oh sorry. Maybe then you should lead with "I have no idea what I'm talking about".
If this person has used your e-mail for his sign-ups, it should be possible for you to take over their accounts by doing password reset.
He's not. He's clearly giving out this email for things he doesn't care about or wants to use as a burner. Otherwise he'd never get the activation emails in the first place.
You see, it's reported
Reports are just international power masturbation. They have no relevance into how far anyone is in any program. Both sides have been working on hyper-sonic missiles for 10 years already. How far along either side is is known only to a select few with just enough information in the media to let either side know the other side thinks its ahead.
Except for the Russians, because Trump wouldn't keep secrets from his BFF Putin.
This right here. Audio recording abilities are good enough to essentially discern the sound of a person quietly breathing while a military jet is taking off next to you with full afterburner. We didn't even have practical dynamic range limits in the audio world back in the CD days. Our ears just aren't that good at picking differences in dynamic range. When blood is pouring out of our ears we won't be complaining about not being able to hear someone breathing.
The problem does exist with digital imaging though on even the highest end cameras. The problem being the our eyes ARE that good in that our entire vision isn't at one fixed exposure. We can stare into the sun and still discern it is yellow against the blue sky while making out what is moving in the shadows. Even high end cameras still have a long way to go before they can match that.
However the biggest problem here is final image processing. The best algorithms in the world don't solve what studios do to modern music. The best algorithms in cameras don't currently apply a dynamic range curve that matches what we physically see.
The readout noise is statistically quite random. This process is used in astronomy precisely toe *reduce* the noise floor.
However you did touch on one thing: read-out circuitry. One of the problems comes in the speed of reading out the data. The better the readout quality the slower it is normally performed on the sensor. By reading out multiple times a millisecond you're going to severely impact performance.
Yes and no. HDR is just a term to describe more dynamic range than you can capture. The traditional HDR process relies on different images with different exposure times, short to capture bright data without saturation, and long to bring faint data above the noise floor.
The GP is talking about combining lots of identical exposures and then mathematically combining them to reduce the noise floor. This is used a lot in astronomy, and yes those pictures could be described as having "high dynamic range".
Image quality is a bit worse, but read-out noise is statistically random and will across multiple iterations be reduced as the data is combined into a final image.