No he said in his youth it didn't work. TBH, if he hadn't been making a joke, then assuming he's talking about the 1980s or early 1990s, he's not far off. Windows was pretty awful at the time.
Of course, in my view, Mac OS was pretty awful back then too, so there's that.
Both sides can choose to indefinitely postpone the process, but they must both agree to this. At this point, the EU side (rightly) isn't budging, but there are realistic ways to undo the damage if Britain and the British people are willing to - namely, a second referendum.
No, she's looking for the ability to ban porn. That's what she does. She looks for excuses to increase powers, and then rather than using them for the purpose she claimed, she uses them to ban Internet porn instead.
UHCR or not, it's also pretty hard to deport British people, and the vast majority of terrorists (and presumably suspected terrorists) in Britain are British.
Britain has a long and ultimately successful history with fighting terrorism. May has been throwing out all the lessons learned over the past 50-60 years, and is intent on adopting populist measures that have a proven record of failure. She'll be bringing back internment next, which'll be just as successful as Gitmo or internment was in NI in the 1970s. ie very successful - if you're recruiting for a terrorist group.
The Intercept is foreign? Have we really reached a level of Russiafication of the US now that American journalists are considered foreign, presumably because they're not Russian?
Alba's actually moved on from acting for the most part and runs a diaper company (or something). I don't know Paltrow's qualifications, and have never heard of Vaynerchuk.
No, sorry, liberal here: still don't like him. Just because we don't like someone doesn't mean we support any attempt to get rid of them, and Trump's firing was obviously based upon an illegitimate rationale and worthy of criticism. But even so, it's a cruel, but entirely appropriate, twist he was fired by the person he put in office.
If he can undo some of the damage by helping get Trump out of office, that's good, but that wouldn't make up for the colossal disaster he brought upon our nation by faking an email scandal days before the election.
By the time of the election Flynn was (and still is) hated by the Washington establishment, I can't even begin to imagine why you'd suggest otherwise. As far as his involvement in Trump's campaign goes, he may or may not have been involved organizationally, but he was absolutely a top supporter of Trump and at one point was being seriously considered as Trump's VP pick. He made numerous appearances for Trump at Trump's campaign rallies.
The implication he was somehow forced on an unwilling Trump is absurd. Trump didn't even want to fire him, and has been defending him in public even after Flynn was gone.
Your point being what exactly? Who said anything about selling?
Microsoft was selling Windows. Microsoft viewed the open web, and Netscape as an independent builder of that, as a long term competitor to Windows. What part of that do you not understand?
That is not... my logic. I said nothing about only the OS
would also insist, despite actual history, that MS had no reason to strong arm Correll, WordPerfect, Bordland, Cybersitter, NetNanny, and countless other companies out of business
Nope, I never addressed those except indirectly.
They did, and they do because that is how you maintain a monopoly. Remove any competition, including those that crop up to attack persistent problems with your base product.
Indeed.
My logic, which should have been obvious to anyone, is that it's only anti-competitive if it involves a Microsoft product competing with a non-Microsoft product, and Microsoft using it's market power to kill the non-Microsoft product.
The comparison that was offered was not between WordPerfect and Netscape, but between various anti-virus products and Netscape. I've explained twice now that those situations are completely unlike one another. Perhaps you'd like to explain how they are, rather than bringing in other examples of products Microsoft smothered, yelling "See?! See?!", that again have absolutely nothing to do with anti-virus.
No argument that Microsoft was particularly obnoxious (understatement) during the 1990s, but the major anti-competitive behavior lawsuit focused on Netscape. I believe Novell would have also had a decent case, given it could reasonably be argued that a neutral third party domain control system was a prerequisite to ensuring a network of both Microsoft and non-Microsoft systems was consistently managed.
But AV? There really are no competition issues. If Microsoft intends to sell Windows Defender in the future, that might point to one, but there's no evidence they do. Indeed, Microsoft's long term aim - with Windows S for example - seems to be to make malware close to impossible to install, which will also put Kaspersky out of business.
Netscape was offering a cross platform system that would eventually result in a new platform for developers to target instead of the Windows Desktop. It could be - and was - reasonably argued that Netscape was a threat to Microsoft competitively. Microsoft themselves saw Netscape as this, and felt the only way to retain their market was to control the development of the web, by squashing Netscape. This they did by providing their own, slightly incompatible, browser.
In the case of anti-virus companies, Microsoft isn't competing with them. They offer no threat at all to Microsoft's business, beyond the embarrassment of having such a thriving industry exist because your own product is insecure. These companies solely exist because Microsoft's product has bugs, and would not exist if Microsoft fixed them. They are not offering an alternative to Windows, Office, or any other paid Microsoft product.
Who is claiming that 1/4 of women in college are raped? The study that's been widely reported and repeated reported that 1/4 of women in college were sexually assaulted. That's very different, and very believable.
Whenever I've heard "sexual assault" changed to "rape" it's by some MRA/GamerGater type trying to ridicule it. Almost as if they're trying to avoid addressing the issue by pretending it's something else...
When the leak came out the usual suspects trotted out the usual nonsense:
1. The NSA were clearly lying and these were bogus because Russia is our friend
2. This is obviously "the deep state" (ie management of the NSA, CIA, etc) trying to undermine Cheeto Mussolini with fake news. Sad!
...until Sessions announced he'd found the leaker and was pressing charges. And then, all of a sudden, we get the usual right-wing "background check" of the leaker, and she's an "SJW" (bad! Boo!) according to them, and she's a contractor, according to Sessions. The latter is actually the important bit, though it's amusing if she's also the leftyish owner of the Twitter account identified by the rightosphere.
What did the campaign against Winners prove? The docs are the real deal. The NSA does, actually, genuinely believe that the Russian state was actively trying to interfere with the election. They're not making that up. They have evidence - they're not sharing it with you but they have it. They're not trying to undermine anyone, no matter how awful they are. Hell, they're still trying to keep this stuff secret. They're actually trying to protect Trump from negative publicity.
As for Winners, the jokes - based upon her name - write themselves. But yes, she's the real deal. Sessions is confirming she leaked real NSA documents. The rightosphere is confirming she's not some high level intelligence official trying to orchestrate a coup. The NSA documents are legit: Russia interfered with the election.
Yeah, I'm wondering whether the problem is VHS was always shitty to begin with, so people are coming across video tapes, playing them, saying "My god, this is awful! The color is all over the place, and smudged, and the image is blurry! And occasionally the screen starts jumping!", and not realizing that this is because VHS was between half and a quarter of the resolution/quality of broadcast NTSC, and was particularly sensitive to recording quality problems.
There's a reason we all jumped on DVD when it came out, despite it lacking a recording ability. No, it wasn't for the ability to select chapters.
(Gen X here) I grew up with spacial file managers and was resistant to their supplantation with single window managers, but I must admit the major reason for them - getting people to intuitively understand the concept of a hierarchical file space and a file's position within it - is no longer as important as it was.
There are two major reasons: one, people are much more computer literate these days. And in my experience, people who have been resistant to learning about computers until now are just never going to get it, spacial file manager or not. And two: your files are now buried in some subfolder of a subfolder on your computer: that is, whether it's \Users\Etcetera,/home/etceteera, or whatever, which is going to generate confusion: either the user has to burrow through a set of directories to get to the part of the system they're allowed to store files on, and do this every time they open their PC, or they're going to get a short cut to the middle of the system in which case it's no longer doing the job of showing the hierarchy.
Should it be like this? Probably not. But that's the way our computers are now.
Just to be clear, is it your position that AAA, an insurance company off-shoot of a respected automotive owners organization, has not actually made any announcement that it intends to hike premiums for Tesla owners and/or has made no comments about Tesla claims being more frequent and more expensive?
Or is it your position that this has happened, but actually a major insurance company is making this decision not for the benefit of its shareholders, but in order to manipulate Tesla's stock price?
(Just so you're aware, Google is reporting the same story from numerous respected publications so the first option is highly unlikely; the second allegation is extremely serious, and could constitute libel if false, so be careful if you decide to assert it.)
It's technically potentially a co-op but not in a way the cooperative movement would recognize as being within the spirit of co-ops. Cooperatives are, indeed, supposed to be owned by the people who work for them, and as users are content generators it could be argued that's what's going on here.
...but users wouldn't see their "working for Twitter" in terms of relying upon it for their livelihoods, which is what a "worker" in a cooperative generally does. And it's not as if Twitter doesn't employ people who actually do rely upon it for their livelihoods, and those people aren't going to be the people owning a majority stake in the company.
I don't think what's being proposed here is a cooperative in a meaningful sense. It's just a way to have a company owned by those who benefit from it, which isn't the same thing.
That's what this is actually about. "Oh noes! Terrorists! We must immediately implement my agenda of Internet censorship, which is actually about porn not terror but shut up!"
You know what I'm fed up with? Politicians who crap their pants every time a terrorist does anything. That means you Ms May. You're doing exactly what they want you to do. For all Thatcher's faults, she didn't act like you and the majority of those politicians who proclaim themselves anti-terror do.
Terrorists are not going away. Either live your values, or live in fear. Your choice.
If you're in "Silicone Valley" (isn't that Beverly Hills?) then yes, you've probably never been exposed to Java. If you worked for a giant non-tech company - banks, automotive manufacturers, etc - you'd almost certainly be a Java (or possibly.NET - but not desktop application.NET) grunt, not programming in whatever it is you do.
If you're old enough to have typed in programs from computer magazines, then think back to those days, and imagine if you worked for Microsoft, or Commodore, or for that matter Activision. You'd have been exposed to a lot of assembler and BASIC, and maybe some C. You wouldn't have met anyone at all who did anything in COBOL. But in the 1980s, COBOL was still one of the world's most popular programming languages, if not the most popular. Our industry is much more specialized than most people think.
What the GP is referring to is called the Confused Deputy problem, a class of security issues where:
* A isn't trusted to access C because reasons.
* A is trusted to access B.
* B is trusted to access C.
* By exploiting a bug or design flaw in B, A can actually access C.
The fact that Security Manager prevents an application from accessing, say, the classes used to access (for example) the file system doesn't mean that an application cannot fool other built-in privileged classes from accessing the file system in the way the application wants if those privileged classes have bugs.
The proof is in the pudding, to a certain extent: if Security Manager worked, then Java applets wouldn't have a reputation almost as bad as Flash's for having the security of swiss cheese. Now, I'd agree with the view that Java isn't nearly as insecure as detractors claim - to a certain extent, we're looking at the airplane vs car problem, where people will drive because they think flying is unsafe, because car crashes aren't news whereas air crashes are reported internationally. But it's certainly had exploits over the decades its ran.
Disclaimer: I can't comment on whether anything being proposed for Java in Java 9 would actually fix this. If java.boogie.graphics.OpenContext(String prefs) throws ContextExceptionWithCompleteConfigurationInExceptionObject does a direct system call to fopen("/var/lib/java/boogie/contexts/" + prefs + ".cfg"), I don't see how any amount of sandboxing or scoping is going to fix that.
The explanation's simpler and less scummy: lawyers are private and pay for themselves. "Enforcement squads" are not, and require taxation. Politicians are very, very, afraid of doing anything that raises taxes, and have been since Reagan.
If you look at the history of this, before Reagan it was extremely common to propose things like the law that created the EPA whereby a law was accompanied by a government department to enforce it. Post-Reagan that's virtually non-existent.
Slashdot Mirror
No he said in his youth it didn't work. TBH, if he hadn't been making a joke, then assuming he's talking about the 1980s or early 1990s, he's not far off. Windows was pretty awful at the time.
Of course, in my view, Mac OS was pretty awful back then too, so there's that.
Both sides can choose to indefinitely postpone the process, but they must both agree to this. At this point, the EU side (rightly) isn't budging, but there are realistic ways to undo the damage if Britain and the British people are willing to - namely, a second referendum.
No, she's looking for the ability to ban porn. That's what she does. She looks for excuses to increase powers, and then rather than using them for the purpose she claimed, she uses them to ban Internet porn instead.
UHCR or not, it's also pretty hard to deport British people, and the vast majority of terrorists (and presumably suspected terrorists) in Britain are British.
Britain has a long and ultimately successful history with fighting terrorism. May has been throwing out all the lessons learned over the past 50-60 years, and is intent on adopting populist measures that have a proven record of failure. She'll be bringing back internment next, which'll be just as successful as Gitmo or internment was in NI in the 1970s. ie very successful - if you're recruiting for a terrorist group.
What about Uber, but for phones? Has anyone done that yet? *puts hand out in front of VCs and is immediately buried in cash*
FWIW, while I agree with much of what you've said, I'm concerned about two issues with the 32-bit to 64 bit shift.
First, I do have some proprietary software (some games, for example) that are 32 bit. I'll never get the source for them.
Second, isn't Wine exclusively 32 bit?
The Intercept is foreign? Have we really reached a level of Russiafication of the US now that American journalists are considered foreign, presumably because they're not Russian?
Alba's actually moved on from acting for the most part and runs a diaper company (or something). I don't know Paltrow's qualifications, and have never heard of Vaynerchuk.
True, but some are fairly insightful. This video presents a counter argument, arguing that the Hyperloop is something we should never give up.
No, sorry, liberal here: still don't like him. Just because we don't like someone doesn't mean we support any attempt to get rid of them, and Trump's firing was obviously based upon an illegitimate rationale and worthy of criticism. But even so, it's a cruel, but entirely appropriate, twist he was fired by the person he put in office.
If he can undo some of the damage by helping get Trump out of office, that's good, but that wouldn't make up for the colossal disaster he brought upon our nation by faking an email scandal days before the election.
By the time of the election Flynn was (and still is) hated by the Washington establishment, I can't even begin to imagine why you'd suggest otherwise. As far as his involvement in Trump's campaign goes, he may or may not have been involved organizationally, but he was absolutely a top supporter of Trump and at one point was being seriously considered as Trump's VP pick. He made numerous appearances for Trump at Trump's campaign rallies.
The implication he was somehow forced on an unwilling Trump is absurd. Trump didn't even want to fire him, and has been defending him in public even after Flynn was gone.
Your point being what exactly? Who said anything about selling?
Microsoft was selling Windows. Microsoft viewed the open web, and Netscape as an independent builder of that, as a long term competitor to Windows. What part of that do you not understand?
That is not... my logic. I said nothing about only the OS
Nope, I never addressed those except indirectly.
Indeed.
My logic, which should have been obvious to anyone, is that it's only anti-competitive if it involves a Microsoft product competing with a non-Microsoft product, and Microsoft using it's market power to kill the non-Microsoft product.
The comparison that was offered was not between WordPerfect and Netscape, but between various anti-virus products and Netscape. I've explained twice now that those situations are completely unlike one another. Perhaps you'd like to explain how they are, rather than bringing in other examples of products Microsoft smothered, yelling "See?! See?!", that again have absolutely nothing to do with anti-virus.
No argument that Microsoft was particularly obnoxious (understatement) during the 1990s, but the major anti-competitive behavior lawsuit focused on Netscape. I believe Novell would have also had a decent case, given it could reasonably be argued that a neutral third party domain control system was a prerequisite to ensuring a network of both Microsoft and non-Microsoft systems was consistently managed.
But AV? There really are no competition issues. If Microsoft intends to sell Windows Defender in the future, that might point to one, but there's no evidence they do. Indeed, Microsoft's long term aim - with Windows S for example - seems to be to make malware close to impossible to install, which will also put Kaspersky out of business.
Netscape was offering a cross platform system that would eventually result in a new platform for developers to target instead of the Windows Desktop. It could be - and was - reasonably argued that Netscape was a threat to Microsoft competitively. Microsoft themselves saw Netscape as this, and felt the only way to retain their market was to control the development of the web, by squashing Netscape. This they did by providing their own, slightly incompatible, browser.
In the case of anti-virus companies, Microsoft isn't competing with them. They offer no threat at all to Microsoft's business, beyond the embarrassment of having such a thriving industry exist because your own product is insecure. These companies solely exist because Microsoft's product has bugs, and would not exist if Microsoft fixed them. They are not offering an alternative to Windows, Office, or any other paid Microsoft product.
As such, I don't expect this to go the same way.
Who is claiming that 1/4 of women in college are raped? The study that's been widely reported and repeated reported that 1/4 of women in college were sexually assaulted. That's very different, and very believable.
Whenever I've heard "sexual assault" changed to "rape" it's by some MRA/GamerGater type trying to ridicule it. Almost as if they're trying to avoid addressing the issue by pretending it's something else...
When the leak came out the usual suspects trotted out the usual nonsense:
1. The NSA were clearly lying and these were bogus because Russia is our friend
2. This is obviously "the deep state" (ie management of the NSA, CIA, etc) trying to undermine Cheeto Mussolini with fake news. Sad!
What did the campaign against Winners prove? The docs are the real deal. The NSA does, actually, genuinely believe that the Russian state was actively trying to interfere with the election. They're not making that up. They have evidence - they're not sharing it with you but they have it. They're not trying to undermine anyone, no matter how awful they are. Hell, they're still trying to keep this stuff secret. They're actually trying to protect Trump from negative publicity.
As for Winners, the jokes - based upon her name - write themselves. But yes, she's the real deal. Sessions is confirming she leaked real NSA documents. The rightosphere is confirming she's not some high level intelligence official trying to orchestrate a coup. The NSA documents are legit: Russia interfered with the election.
Yeah, I'm wondering whether the problem is VHS was always shitty to begin with, so people are coming across video tapes, playing them, saying "My god, this is awful! The color is all over the place, and smudged, and the image is blurry! And occasionally the screen starts jumping!", and not realizing that this is because VHS was between half and a quarter of the resolution/quality of broadcast NTSC, and was particularly sensitive to recording quality problems.
There's a reason we all jumped on DVD when it came out, despite it lacking a recording ability. No, it wasn't for the ability to select chapters.
(Gen X here) I grew up with spacial file managers and was resistant to their supplantation with single window managers, but I must admit the major reason for them - getting people to intuitively understand the concept of a hierarchical file space and a file's position within it - is no longer as important as it was.
There are two major reasons: one, people are much more computer literate these days. And in my experience, people who have been resistant to learning about computers until now are just never going to get it, spacial file manager or not. And two: your files are now buried in some subfolder of a subfolder on your computer: that is, whether it's \Users\Etcetera, /home/etceteera, or whatever, which is going to generate confusion: either the user has to burrow through a set of directories to get to the part of the system they're allowed to store files on, and do this every time they open their PC, or they're going to get a short cut to the middle of the system in which case it's no longer doing the job of showing the hierarchy.
Should it be like this? Probably not. But that's the way our computers are now.
Just to be clear, is it your position that AAA, an insurance company off-shoot of a respected automotive owners organization, has not actually made any announcement that it intends to hike premiums for Tesla owners and/or has made no comments about Tesla claims being more frequent and more expensive?
Or is it your position that this has happened, but actually a major insurance company is making this decision not for the benefit of its shareholders, but in order to manipulate Tesla's stock price?
(Just so you're aware, Google is reporting the same story from numerous respected publications so the first option is highly unlikely; the second allegation is extremely serious, and could constitute libel if false, so be careful if you decide to assert it.)
It's technically potentially a co-op but not in a way the cooperative movement would recognize as being within the spirit of co-ops. Cooperatives are, indeed, supposed to be owned by the people who work for them, and as users are content generators it could be argued that's what's going on here.
I don't think what's being proposed here is a cooperative in a meaningful sense. It's just a way to have a company owned by those who benefit from it, which isn't the same thing.
That's what this is actually about. "Oh noes! Terrorists! We must immediately implement my agenda of Internet censorship, which is actually about porn not terror but shut up!"
You know what I'm fed up with? Politicians who crap their pants every time a terrorist does anything. That means you Ms May. You're doing exactly what they want you to do. For all Thatcher's faults, she didn't act like you and the majority of those politicians who proclaim themselves anti-terror do.
Terrorists are not going away. Either live your values, or live in fear. Your choice.
If you're in "Silicone Valley" (isn't that Beverly Hills?) then yes, you've probably never been exposed to Java. If you worked for a giant non-tech company - banks, automotive manufacturers, etc - you'd almost certainly be a Java (or possibly .NET - but not desktop application .NET) grunt, not programming in whatever it is you do.
If you're old enough to have typed in programs from computer magazines, then think back to those days, and imagine if you worked for Microsoft, or Commodore, or for that matter Activision. You'd have been exposed to a lot of assembler and BASIC, and maybe some C. You wouldn't have met anyone at all who did anything in COBOL. But in the 1980s, COBOL was still one of the world's most popular programming languages, if not the most popular. Our industry is much more specialized than most people think.
What the GP is referring to is called the Confused Deputy problem, a class of security issues where:
* A isn't trusted to access C because reasons.
* A is trusted to access B.
* B is trusted to access C.
* By exploiting a bug or design flaw in B, A can actually access C.
The fact that Security Manager prevents an application from accessing, say, the classes used to access (for example) the file system doesn't mean that an application cannot fool other built-in privileged classes from accessing the file system in the way the application wants if those privileged classes have bugs.
The proof is in the pudding, to a certain extent: if Security Manager worked, then Java applets wouldn't have a reputation almost as bad as Flash's for having the security of swiss cheese. Now, I'd agree with the view that Java isn't nearly as insecure as detractors claim - to a certain extent, we're looking at the airplane vs car problem, where people will drive because they think flying is unsafe, because car crashes aren't news whereas air crashes are reported internationally. But it's certainly had exploits over the decades its ran.
Disclaimer: I can't comment on whether anything being proposed for Java in Java 9 would actually fix this. If java.boogie.graphics.OpenContext(String prefs) throws ContextExceptionWithCompleteConfigurationInExceptionObject does a direct system call to fopen("/var/lib/java/boogie/contexts/" + prefs + ".cfg"), I don't see how any amount of sandboxing or scoping is going to fix that.
So this allows us to run cars on Gatoraid?
The explanation's simpler and less scummy: lawyers are private and pay for themselves. "Enforcement squads" are not, and require taxation. Politicians are very, very, afraid of doing anything that raises taxes, and have been since Reagan.
If you look at the history of this, before Reagan it was extremely common to propose things like the law that created the EPA whereby a law was accompanied by a government department to enforce it. Post-Reagan that's virtually non-existent.