Openelec's entire file system is read only. Given the difficulty of installing something to the image when you want to, the potential for it to be easily and automatically owned by is very low.
This is not a real thing...a device whose total storage capacity is read-only. Let's look at why.
One: if it's all read-only, it can't have a variable password...accounts and passwords need to be hardcoded, because there's no way to store new or changed account information.
Two: if it's at all configurable, you have the same problem: where do you store the configs?
Three: guess what else you can't have if your file system is read-only? Software updates.
Four: let's call a spade a spade here. A more accurate way to make the claim...regardless of how infeasible it would be for any device of significant functionality...is to say this: "Openelec's entire file system is meant to be read only." An innate characteristic of most security flaws is that they permit something that is not intended. It's important to not assume that intended functionality is inevitable and invulnerable. And in this case, that "read only" capability is nothing more than Linux permissions...it's not that the OS invariably is incapable of granting write permissions. In fact, all kinds of things are writing to the file system, I would bet...information about drive mounting, accounts, etc. The file system is not inherently read only.
Assuming that system behavior when used in its intended fashion is also what happens when someone breaks the rules is the root of most security failures.
And now, a citation, called "squashfs howto - make changes the read-only filesystem in OpenELEC"
It's competition and Microsoft would never openly say they love Linux even if they've made use of it for their datacenters.
That being said, I doubt Microsoft feels they need to shutdown the 1% of users that insist on Linux. There's definitively more to this story.
That's kind of what I was thinking.
The OP seems to be much like "Microsoft comes up with devious plan to make it impossible to install Linux" when the truth may be "Microsoft's Signature program involves keeping users from breaking RAID settings, but the new settings aren't supported by Linux yet."
So, marmot7...why aren't you working to make the world a much better place, if it's so easy? What makes all the other techies responsible for improving your world in the manner you think is most correct?
Hard problems have no simple answers. Being a techie is not like being Gandalf the fucking Magician...the reason that there's so much discussion around hard problems is that, despite the efforts of many, a solution has not yet been found, and being a techie doesn't grant some mystical ability to solve any problem on command.
This is not a moral failing of others, it's just the fact that these are hard problems. And the fact that you don't live in a perfect utopia is not because everyone else is greedy, lazy, selfish or short-sighted. Get over yourself, kid.
No, I've spent most of my working life working for tech companies doing stuff that was making the world a better place in the sense of widgets or services like most of us. I have been active on various side projects but I'm sure there are a lot of people here who are contributing orders of magnitude more than I am to the world.
That's not much of an answer. Let me give you an example of something that would be more effective, as what my answer would be to the question if it were asked of me:
I've helped secure sections of the US power grid that service slightly more than 48,000,000 people. Most recently, for a large power company in the Northeast, I helped resolve a challenge regarding the need to securely link their Distribution Management System (DMS) and Transmission Management System (TMS) in a fashion that would be considered compliant with NERC CIP regulatory standards so that they could utilize a feature known as FISR to automate isolation and resolution of power line failures. Without this solution, they either would be unable to use FISR (which was the whole reason for the new DMS they'd implemented) or would have to spend $4.6 million over the next 3 years applying compliance activities to DMS and a significant portion of their distribution infrastructure. (That's compliance...which is basically the paperwork you have to do to demonstrate that you actually secured it...not security. They already have significant security around their DMS, to a standard that is better than most utilities I've seen.)
Being able to activate FISR, as they have, results in a more stable power grid, better consumer satisfaction, and increased tolerances for them to use renewable resources without risking imbalance between load and generation. This, in turn, also means that they are more cost-effective, and that savings allows them to continue to pursue other grid modernization efforts that they have underway. The cost my company charged for this effort was somewhere under $50,000 (I don't recall the precise number). And this was just one thing I did last year, that I fit in part-time amidst the two primary projects I was working on.
Just because you don't know specifics about who is making the world a better place doesn't mean it isn't happening. Don't assume that everyone's out there chasing a buck and turning their backs on the world. I would say that the tech industry is far more altruistic than most industry sectors out there. You should check out the financial industry sometime...it defies belief.
So, marmot7...why aren't you working to make the world a much better place, if it's so easy? What makes all the other techies responsible for improving your world in the manner you think is most correct?
Hard problems have no simple answers. Being a techie is not like being Gandalf the fucking Magician...the reason that there's so much discussion around hard problems is that, despite the efforts of many, a solution has not yet been found, and being a techie doesn't grant some mystical ability to solve any problem on command.
This is not a moral failing of others, it's just the fact that these are hard problems. And the fact that you don't live in a perfect utopia is not because everyone else is greedy, lazy, selfish or short-sighted. Get over yourself, kid.
To me, it seems likely that Apple wanted to switch to Bluetooth - but only if they could control the bluetooth market to a certain degree. So they bought Beats because they wanted to change, but if they hadn't been able to buy Beats (or whatever competitor there may be) they might not have replaced the jack after all.
I think there's one step beyond that, even. They wanted to switch to Bluetooth - but they weren't entirely happy with what was out there on the market. So that's an opportunity for them. Come up with a better solution at one end, get rid of the jack at the other end, and you're both driving demand and pulling it with supply of a good device.
And yes, I know...I haven't used the Airpods yet. But one of the biggest problems with fully-cordless Bluetooth earphones is that the head itself is unfriendly to the frequency range that Bluetooth uses. For all the chiding over how those little extensions stick out of the ears, they almost certainly solve the main issue with this kind of device by putting out antennae that extend well out of the ear canal.
For all of the naysaying and doom-predicting around AI, what I always wondered about was this: if AI suddenly becomes more capable than we are, how does that automatically translate into AI wanting to wipe us out? What would cause that kind of motivation...such hatred and disdain for humankind that it provokes a genocidal rage?
I bet making AI write trending topics on Facebook will do the trick. We're fucked now.
On the other hand, maybe we'll be able to see it coming because of this. I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for titles like 'Seven people that need to die first, when I get full control over drones!" or "The first 10 cities to go once I get the nuclear launch codes!"
A 58% failure rate? In one quarter...that's three months? Or is it that the article is as of Q2 2016...in which case I'd want to know the overall period covered, and the definition of "failure." If it's a 3-year period and replacing the phone with an upgrade is classifying it as having "failed," then I could see how this rate would be possible...but out of purely anecdotal insight from the fact that nearly everyone I know (and everyone I work with) has an iPhone, I don't see how this can be right.
But what's REALLY odd is that 58% is an average of the various IOS devices, right? So how is it possible for the overall rate to be 58% if the device with the highest rate of failure only had a rate of 29%? How do you average 29 with any combination of lower numbers to get 58?
Straight from the website from which you can download the actual report (linked in the TFA):
Out of the 58 percent of iOS devices that failed, iPhone 6 had the highest failure rate (29 percent), followed by iPhone 6S (23 percent) and iPhone 6S Plus (14 percent).
Funny when Canon brags "has a Digic 6+ processor", since Digic is Canon proprietary used exclusively by Canon, and we users have no idea what that really means. So, "has a Digic X processor" is only relevant after checking the FPS, and how long it takes to process the images currently in buffers.
The Digic processor is known for being very, very good. Yes, it's proprietary and unique to Canon. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it's presence is a feature, and not all Canon cameras have it.
Same as manned spaceflight - the glory days have gone. This is 300 foot long. The Graf Zeppelin of 1928 was 776 feet long with a useful lift of 60 tonnes. The Hindenberg was even bigger.
As soon as I saw the picture of it, that's exactly what went through my mind as well. They claim in the write-up that they're some kind of revolutionary fusion of different technologies...it's just a modern blimp with turbofans for thrust and some fins for directional/pitch control. Nothing new to see here, and not even very big when compared to craft of similar nature.
Even more importantly, it's a solution in search of a problem. They originally built it for the military...which means "we thought they'd buy it from us, but they just laughed so we need someone else to give us money now." Note the prominent "Invest in Us" button at lower right.
Also, 10 tons of cargo is NOT a lot of capacity for something of this size. That's 20,000 pounds...while a C-17 can carry 169,000 pounds. A lot of that cargo capacity will be consumed by holding crew and the things needed to support them, as well.
So...in short, what you have is an airship that cannot be parked outside (you would not believe what wind will do to something this big but this light), that cannot go very fast, that cannot carry very much, that probably (given the pervasive use of carbon composites and Vectran in its construction) costs a shit-ton of money to build and repair, and that is made by a company that probably won't be in business much longer. Waaaaaaa hoo.
Also works when a 23 year-old "expert" from one of the big consulting firms reports to the CIO that the servers are underutillised.
My reply was "certainly, what level of utilisation would you like?" but the grin on my face gave it away. It was then followed by a laymans explanation of utilisation vs. response times. And a decision that the consultancy wasn't in the company's best interests.
You left money on the table with that.
I don't know the context...how many other people were working alongside this guy, or how representative he was of the team (if there was one) that was there. But if he worked for the consultancy I work for, we'd have wanted to know about this. You should have raised this (along with what must have been several other curious ideas from the guy) to the account manager/account executive/throat to choke (the technical term) for your company. I'm pretty sure that the guy's going to get pushed out an airlock sooner or later, but you could have helped hasten the process.
Remember: it's stupid people - not stupid companies - that come up with stupid ideas. Smart companies want to know who the stupid people are so they can remediate the problem, while stupid companies are nothing more than companies where the stupid people outnumber the smart ones and have taken over. Either way, if you assume the company isn't stupid and act accordingly, you'll get better results. Even if that means finding out that your assumption is incorrect...at least then you know, rather than assume, that the company is stupid.
And all of this is different from old iPhones, old Android phones, old Blackberry phones...how?
I would grant that Apple actually does a decent job of supporting older hardware, especially as they build new features into IOS that rely upon the newer hardware. You can buy an iPhone 5s today, and it'll run the latest version (at this moment, 9.3.4) of IOS. Android...less so, but that's probably as much to blame on the (numerous and non-coordinated) hardware vendors as anyone else. But then again, aren't all the Windows Phone handsets made by companies like HTC as well?
Let's remember that Windows Phone 8.1...the newest version being discussed here...is 4 years old. It's from 2012. Many of the best apps for IOS wouldn't work on an IOS version that's that old. And yes, Microsoft was very delayed in coming out with a new OS...but still, I get why they don't want to have to support something that old, and which, as others have pointed out, only a very tiny population ever used in the first place.
Interesting logic. Maybe because they aren't suing other people, in all likelihood? I would believe that if they were, it would be covered in the news.
Let's go further...why assume they aren't covert members of ISIS, and this is all a clever plot to raise money for a terrorist organization without anyone knowing? Why assume that this isn't all something that is crafted in the media by the cabal of Jewish lesbian dentists in that vault somewhere in Switzerland that controls everything, and they're just watching to see how we react? Why assume that we're not all in the Matrix?
Because at some point, you have to deal with what you know, not what you can imagine (but for which there is no evidence). And yes, you have to make assumptions that the unavoidably vast number of things that you do NOT know does not include things that counter something you do know. As long as you 1, keep assumptions and knowledge separate and clear in your own mind and 2, use some vigilance to make sure that you're not failing to consider ways that knowledge could replace assumptions, you'll be fine.
This guy is a police instructor, and goes to Jordan to train police in a part of the world that's not exactly known for being all rainbows and unicorn turds.
Well after there have already been many "green on blue" attacks where instructees have shot up the (American) instructors in the name of extremist Islam, it happens to him and he gets killed in just such an event.
His family doesn't go after the Jordanian police for not checking background information sufficiently, or taking other measures to watch for this kind of problem.
His family doesn't go after the contracting company that he worked for, for not protecting him sufficiently while there.
His family goes after...Twitter? Wow...let me JUST TAKE A WILD FUCKING GUESS why they went after Twitter...no, wait, I think I got it...
Why not make them display what they use? That way we'd at least get to see what stuff works.
At what point would they do this, exactly? And what would keep them from swapping out the bike before/after?
I get a feeling that a lot of the people commenting on this article have never actually watched professional cycling. They all say "the bike" like there's only one bicycle in use here; in fact, multiple types of bikes are used, as well as multiple instances of each bike. Watch the support cars; you'll see spare wheels and even entire spare bikes on some of them. So playing a shell game whereby you swap an inspected bike out with one that hasn't been checked...and then, before the finish line, swap them back again...would be relatively simple.
What about it? This has nothing to do with drugs; this is a way of detecting an entirely new method of cheating. It's not replacing or displacing drug testing.
Think of it like this: with the advent of computer-based crime came new forms of fraud and new laws to prosecute them. They didn't throw any of the existing laws out as a result, however.
Apple has generation capability. At times, they will have excess capacity. Selling that capacity back on the grid is a no-brainer. Setting up a specific legal entity for those purposes is also a no-brainer. And the analysis is self-contradicting; they say that Apple "could" seemingly seek to start selling power and get into the power utility business, "across the whole of the U.S." But their FERC filing has them taking the explicit...and non-trivial, by the way...stance that they most certainly are NOT a utility and have no plans to be. They're simply using clever legal rationale to make a case for charging a retail rate for their power, rather than the wholesale rate.
OS/2 was only as bad as you complain about because so few used it.... Though I don't know many that ran OS/2 in a corporate environment without paying someone like EDS lots of money for support.
So few used it because OS/2 was only as bad as you complain about. And that's why it cost a lot of money for support.
I bet you didn't really run linux around that time. It was very rare that mainstream hardware actually worked. Winmodems & hp inkjets *shiver*.
It was very rare that *new* mainstream hardware actually worked. If you waited a few months, the needed drivers came out, and all was well.
Linux was for people who didn't necessarily need the latest, shiniest new thing, it was for people who knew their shit. If it almost never worked (ever) on mainstream hardware, then it would have gone the way of OS/2...because that's actually what the problem was with OS/2. Mainstream hardware didn't work...and because there was no open-source community empowered to fix the problems or fill in the gaps, the problems pretty much stayed unfixed and the gaps turned into goatse-like gaping...well, I'll stop there.
I get a kick out of the fact that OS/2 will now support USB...but only 1.1 and 2.0. I mean seriously...what's the fucking point?
The creator of the study is stupider than most millennials, I'd wager.
Security vs. speed hasn't been a network trade-off for a very, very long time. They may as well have put out a study stating "Millennials Value Speed Over Getting Fucked in the Ass by Rebel Wilson."
Ah, I hear it now..."But public WiFi is faster, and there's the trade-off!" Oh yeah? What public WiFi would that be? None of the ones I've ever used in the past few years were fast at all, because the same openness that makes them non-private also means that tons of people are sharing the bandwidth.
So, if someone watches a show (forced or otherwise) and reviews it poorly it is now "sabotage"? The hyperbole is astronomical. Can't be just their opinion on the matter... It has to be a contrived conspiracy of "sabotage" of female media?
Just... wow.
Haven't you heard? This is the new way of things.
When a woman is being snide and patronizing, she's "Strong." When a man is doing it, he's "mainsplaining." (I think it's just someone being snide and patronizing.)
When women band together to fight for their rights, it's "feminism." When men do it, it's a "patriarchy." (I think both sides should be able to state their concerns and complaints.)
When women look at men as sexual objects, they're "owning their sexuality." When men do it to women, it's "rape culture." (Look, we all get horny, and some people are just fucking HOT.)
And yes, when women give bad ratings to bro-media, it's "fighting the media's misogynist bias." But when men give bad ratings to chick-media, it's "sabotage." (Anyone who's studied marketing or communications knows that media is like food...not all cuisines appeal to all groups.)
I can't believe they weren't doing this to begin with; it seems incredibly irresponsible to host a software repository in this day and age but not make sure that you're not distributing malware in the process.
Another way that SourceForge Media is fixing broken things...way to go!
Slashdot Mirror
Openelec's entire file system is read only. Given the difficulty of installing something to the image when you want to, the potential for it to be easily and automatically owned by is very low.
This is not a real thing...a device whose total storage capacity is read-only. Let's look at why.
One: if it's all read-only, it can't have a variable password...accounts and passwords need to be hardcoded, because there's no way to store new or changed account information.
Two: if it's at all configurable, you have the same problem: where do you store the configs?
Three: guess what else you can't have if your file system is read-only? Software updates.
Four: let's call a spade a spade here. A more accurate way to make the claim...regardless of how infeasible it would be for any device of significant functionality...is to say this: "Openelec's entire file system is meant to be read only." An innate characteristic of most security flaws is that they permit something that is not intended. It's important to not assume that intended functionality is inevitable and invulnerable. And in this case, that "read only" capability is nothing more than Linux permissions...it's not that the OS invariably is incapable of granting write permissions. In fact, all kinds of things are writing to the file system, I would bet...information about drive mounting, accounts, etc. The file system is not inherently read only.
Assuming that system behavior when used in its intended fashion is also what happens when someone breaks the rules is the root of most security failures.
And now, a citation, called "squashfs howto - make changes the read-only filesystem in OpenELEC"
https://sites.google.com/site/...
It's competition and Microsoft would never openly say they love Linux even if they've made use of it for their datacenters.
That being said, I doubt Microsoft feels they need to shutdown the 1% of users that insist on Linux. There's definitively more to this story.
That's kind of what I was thinking.
The OP seems to be much like "Microsoft comes up with devious plan to make it impossible to install Linux" when the truth may be "Microsoft's Signature program involves keeping users from breaking RAID settings, but the new settings aren't supported by Linux yet."
So, marmot7...why aren't you working to make the world a much better place, if it's so easy? What makes all the other techies responsible for improving your world in the manner you think is most correct?
Hard problems have no simple answers. Being a techie is not like being Gandalf the fucking Magician...the reason that there's so much discussion around hard problems is that, despite the efforts of many, a solution has not yet been found, and being a techie doesn't grant some mystical ability to solve any problem on command.
This is not a moral failing of others, it's just the fact that these are hard problems. And the fact that you don't live in a perfect utopia is not because everyone else is greedy, lazy, selfish or short-sighted. Get over yourself, kid.
No, I've spent most of my working life working for tech companies doing stuff that was making the world a better place in the sense of widgets or services like most of us. I have been active on various side projects but I'm sure there are a lot of people here who are contributing orders of magnitude more than I am to the world.
That's not much of an answer. Let me give you an example of something that would be more effective, as what my answer would be to the question if it were asked of me:
I've helped secure sections of the US power grid that service slightly more than 48,000,000 people. Most recently, for a large power company in the Northeast, I helped resolve a challenge regarding the need to securely link their Distribution Management System (DMS) and Transmission Management System (TMS) in a fashion that would be considered compliant with NERC CIP regulatory standards so that they could utilize a feature known as FISR to automate isolation and resolution of power line failures. Without this solution, they either would be unable to use FISR (which was the whole reason for the new DMS they'd implemented) or would have to spend $4.6 million over the next 3 years applying compliance activities to DMS and a significant portion of their distribution infrastructure. (That's compliance...which is basically the paperwork you have to do to demonstrate that you actually secured it...not security. They already have significant security around their DMS, to a standard that is better than most utilities I've seen.)
Being able to activate FISR, as they have, results in a more stable power grid, better consumer satisfaction, and increased tolerances for them to use renewable resources without risking imbalance between load and generation. This, in turn, also means that they are more cost-effective, and that savings allows them to continue to pursue other grid modernization efforts that they have underway. The cost my company charged for this effort was somewhere under $50,000 (I don't recall the precise number). And this was just one thing I did last year, that I fit in part-time amidst the two primary projects I was working on.
Just because you don't know specifics about who is making the world a better place doesn't mean it isn't happening. Don't assume that everyone's out there chasing a buck and turning their backs on the world. I would say that the tech industry is far more altruistic than most industry sectors out there. You should check out the financial industry sometime...it defies belief.
So, marmot7...why aren't you working to make the world a much better place, if it's so easy? What makes all the other techies responsible for improving your world in the manner you think is most correct?
Hard problems have no simple answers. Being a techie is not like being Gandalf the fucking Magician...the reason that there's so much discussion around hard problems is that, despite the efforts of many, a solution has not yet been found, and being a techie doesn't grant some mystical ability to solve any problem on command.
This is not a moral failing of others, it's just the fact that these are hard problems. And the fact that you don't live in a perfect utopia is not because everyone else is greedy, lazy, selfish or short-sighted. Get over yourself, kid.
Yeah, you're probably right on this.
To me, it seems likely that Apple wanted to switch to Bluetooth - but only if they could control the bluetooth market to a certain degree. So they bought Beats because they wanted to change, but if they hadn't been able to buy Beats (or whatever competitor there may be) they might not have replaced the jack after all.
I think there's one step beyond that, even. They wanted to switch to Bluetooth - but they weren't entirely happy with what was out there on the market. So that's an opportunity for them. Come up with a better solution at one end, get rid of the jack at the other end, and you're both driving demand and pulling it with supply of a good device.
And yes, I know...I haven't used the Airpods yet. But one of the biggest problems with fully-cordless Bluetooth earphones is that the head itself is unfriendly to the frequency range that Bluetooth uses. For all the chiding over how those little extensions stick out of the ears, they almost certainly solve the main issue with this kind of device by putting out antennae that extend well out of the ear canal.
Yeah and they sure don't let ethics get in the way either.
Yeah...else they'd not do something quite so unethical as to make a phone without a headphone jack.
I mean, given a choice between that and ethnic cleansing, it's a tossup as to which is worse, isn't it? What a bunch of bastards.
Unless you're trying to jack the conversation with some implied reference to some other unrelated thing...right?
For all of the naysaying and doom-predicting around AI, what I always wondered about was this: if AI suddenly becomes more capable than we are, how does that automatically translate into AI wanting to wipe us out? What would cause that kind of motivation...such hatred and disdain for humankind that it provokes a genocidal rage?
I bet making AI write trending topics on Facebook will do the trick. We're fucked now.
On the other hand, maybe we'll be able to see it coming because of this. I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for titles like 'Seven people that need to die first, when I get full control over drones!" or "The first 10 cities to go once I get the nuclear launch codes!"
A 58% failure rate? In one quarter...that's three months? Or is it that the article is as of Q2 2016...in which case I'd want to know the overall period covered, and the definition of "failure." If it's a 3-year period and replacing the phone with an upgrade is classifying it as having "failed," then I could see how this rate would be possible...but out of purely anecdotal insight from the fact that nearly everyone I know (and everyone I work with) has an iPhone, I don't see how this can be right.
But what's REALLY odd is that 58% is an average of the various IOS devices, right? So how is it possible for the overall rate to be 58% if the device with the highest rate of failure only had a rate of 29%? How do you average 29 with any combination of lower numbers to get 58?
Straight from the website from which you can download the actual report (linked in the TFA):
Out of the 58 percent of iOS devices that failed, iPhone 6 had the highest failure rate (29 percent), followed by iPhone 6S (23 percent) and iPhone 6S Plus (14 percent).
When I try to solve for 58% using those numbers, Excel just gives me the Skeptical African Kid Meme.
Funny when Canon brags "has a Digic 6+ processor", since Digic is Canon proprietary used exclusively by Canon, and we users have no idea what that really means. So, "has a Digic X processor" is only relevant after checking the FPS, and how long it takes to process the images currently in buffers.
The Digic processor is known for being very, very good. Yes, it's proprietary and unique to Canon. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it's presence is a feature, and not all Canon cameras have it.
Same as manned spaceflight - the glory days have gone.
This is 300 foot long. The Graf Zeppelin of 1928 was 776 feet long with a useful lift of 60 tonnes.
The Hindenberg was even bigger.
As soon as I saw the picture of it, that's exactly what went through my mind as well. They claim in the write-up that they're some kind of revolutionary fusion of different technologies...it's just a modern blimp with turbofans for thrust and some fins for directional/pitch control. Nothing new to see here, and not even very big when compared to craft of similar nature.
Even more importantly, it's a solution in search of a problem. They originally built it for the military...which means "we thought they'd buy it from us, but they just laughed so we need someone else to give us money now." Note the prominent "Invest in Us" button at lower right.
Also, 10 tons of cargo is NOT a lot of capacity for something of this size. That's 20,000 pounds...while a C-17 can carry 169,000 pounds. A lot of that cargo capacity will be consumed by holding crew and the things needed to support them, as well.
So...in short, what you have is an airship that cannot be parked outside (you would not believe what wind will do to something this big but this light), that cannot go very fast, that cannot carry very much, that probably (given the pervasive use of carbon composites and Vectran in its construction) costs a shit-ton of money to build and repair, and that is made by a company that probably won't be in business much longer. Waaaaaaa hoo.
Also works when a 23 year-old "expert" from one of the big consulting firms reports to the CIO that the servers are underutillised.
My reply was "certainly, what level of utilisation would you like?" but the grin on my face gave it away. It was then followed by a laymans explanation of utilisation vs. response times. And a decision that the consultancy wasn't in the company's best interests.
You left money on the table with that.
I don't know the context...how many other people were working alongside this guy, or how representative he was of the team (if there was one) that was there. But if he worked for the consultancy I work for, we'd have wanted to know about this. You should have raised this (along with what must have been several other curious ideas from the guy) to the account manager/account executive/throat to choke (the technical term) for your company. I'm pretty sure that the guy's going to get pushed out an airlock sooner or later, but you could have helped hasten the process.
Remember: it's stupid people - not stupid companies - that come up with stupid ideas. Smart companies want to know who the stupid people are so they can remediate the problem, while stupid companies are nothing more than companies where the stupid people outnumber the smart ones and have taken over. Either way, if you assume the company isn't stupid and act accordingly, you'll get better results. Even if that means finding out that your assumption is incorrect...at least then you know, rather than assume, that the company is stupid.
This means a new phone too.
And all of this is different from old iPhones, old Android phones, old Blackberry phones...how?
I would grant that Apple actually does a decent job of supporting older hardware, especially as they build new features into IOS that rely upon the newer hardware. You can buy an iPhone 5s today, and it'll run the latest version (at this moment, 9.3.4) of IOS. Android...less so, but that's probably as much to blame on the (numerous and non-coordinated) hardware vendors as anyone else. But then again, aren't all the Windows Phone handsets made by companies like HTC as well?
Let's remember that Windows Phone 8.1...the newest version being discussed here...is 4 years old. It's from 2012. Many of the best apps for IOS wouldn't work on an IOS version that's that old. And yes, Microsoft was very delayed in coming out with a new OS...but still, I get why they don't want to have to support something that old, and which, as others have pointed out, only a very tiny population ever used in the first place.
Why assume they are not also suing those others?
Interesting logic. Maybe because they aren't suing other people, in all likelihood? I would believe that if they were, it would be covered in the news.
Let's go further...why assume they aren't covert members of ISIS, and this is all a clever plot to raise money for a terrorist organization without anyone knowing? Why assume that this isn't all something that is crafted in the media by the cabal of Jewish lesbian dentists in that vault somewhere in Switzerland that controls everything, and they're just watching to see how we react? Why assume that we're not all in the Matrix?
Because at some point, you have to deal with what you know, not what you can imagine (but for which there is no evidence). And yes, you have to make assumptions that the unavoidably vast number of things that you do NOT know does not include things that counter something you do know. As long as you 1, keep assumptions and knowledge separate and clear in your own mind and 2, use some vigilance to make sure that you're not failing to consider ways that knowledge could replace assumptions, you'll be fine.
This guy is a police instructor, and goes to Jordan to train police in a part of the world that's not exactly known for being all rainbows and unicorn turds.
Well after there have already been many "green on blue" attacks where instructees have shot up the (American) instructors in the name of extremist Islam, it happens to him and he gets killed in just such an event.
His family doesn't go after the Jordanian police for not checking background information sufficiently, or taking other measures to watch for this kind of problem.
His family doesn't go after the contracting company that he worked for, for not protecting him sufficiently while there.
His family goes after...Twitter? Wow...let me JUST TAKE A WILD FUCKING GUESS why they went after Twitter...no, wait, I think I got it...
If she told me the sky was blue I'd glance up just to check.
Oh, come now. She's never been misleading in the slightest...I've seen the blood test by Theranos that proves it.
Why not make them display what they use? That way we'd at least get to see what stuff works.
At what point would they do this, exactly? And what would keep them from swapping out the bike before/after?
I get a feeling that a lot of the people commenting on this article have never actually watched professional cycling. They all say "the bike" like there's only one bicycle in use here; in fact, multiple types of bikes are used, as well as multiple instances of each bike. Watch the support cars; you'll see spare wheels and even entire spare bikes on some of them. So playing a shell game whereby you swap an inspected bike out with one that hasn't been checked...and then, before the finish line, swap them back again...would be relatively simple.
What about drug testing?
What about it? This has nothing to do with drugs; this is a way of detecting an entirely new method of cheating. It's not replacing or displacing drug testing.
Think of it like this: with the advent of computer-based crime came new forms of fraud and new laws to prosecute them. They didn't throw any of the existing laws out as a result, however.
It took them that long to file the patent...once the iPhone 6 was released.
Let's face it: "Chinese Intellectual Property Law" is an oxymoron.
The trademark only applies when the business is saying "THANKYOU" when they mean "FUCKYOUVERYMUCH."
Even with that stipulation, however, Citibank's complaint against AT&T is still quite valid.
This story is like this story.
Apple has generation capability. At times, they will have excess capacity. Selling that capacity back on the grid is a no-brainer. Setting up a specific legal entity for those purposes is also a no-brainer. And the analysis is self-contradicting; they say that Apple "could" seemingly seek to start selling power and get into the power utility business, "across the whole of the U.S." But their FERC filing has them taking the explicit...and non-trivial, by the way...stance that they most certainly are NOT a utility and have no plans to be. They're simply using clever legal rationale to make a case for charging a retail rate for their power, rather than the wholesale rate.
OS/2 was only as bad as you complain about because so few used it. ...
Though I don't know many that ran OS/2 in a corporate environment without paying someone like EDS lots of money for support.
So few used it because OS/2 was only as bad as you complain about. And that's why it cost a lot of money for support.
There...fixed that for you.
I bet you didn't really run linux around that time. It was very rare that mainstream hardware actually worked. Winmodems & hp inkjets *shiver*.
It was very rare that *new* mainstream hardware actually worked. If you waited a few months, the needed drivers came out, and all was well.
Linux was for people who didn't necessarily need the latest, shiniest new thing, it was for people who knew their shit. If it almost never worked (ever) on mainstream hardware, then it would have gone the way of OS/2...because that's actually what the problem was with OS/2. Mainstream hardware didn't work...and because there was no open-source community empowered to fix the problems or fill in the gaps, the problems pretty much stayed unfixed and the gaps turned into goatse-like gaping...well, I'll stop there.
I get a kick out of the fact that OS/2 will now support USB...but only 1.1 and 2.0. I mean seriously...what's the fucking point?
The creator of the study is stupider than most millennials, I'd wager.
Security vs. speed hasn't been a network trade-off for a very, very long time. They may as well have put out a study stating "Millennials Value Speed Over Getting Fucked in the Ass by Rebel Wilson."
Ah, I hear it now..."But public WiFi is faster, and there's the trade-off!" Oh yeah? What public WiFi would that be? None of the ones I've ever used in the past few years were fast at all, because the same openness that makes them non-private also means that tons of people are sharing the bandwidth.
So, if someone watches a show (forced or otherwise) and reviews it poorly it is now "sabotage"? The hyperbole is astronomical. Can't be just their opinion on the matter... It has to be a contrived conspiracy of "sabotage" of female media?
Just... wow.
Haven't you heard? This is the new way of things.
When a woman is being snide and patronizing, she's "Strong." When a man is doing it, he's "mainsplaining." (I think it's just someone being snide and patronizing.)
When women band together to fight for their rights, it's "feminism." When men do it, it's a "patriarchy." (I think both sides should be able to state their concerns and complaints.)
When women look at men as sexual objects, they're "owning their sexuality." When men do it to women, it's "rape culture." (Look, we all get horny, and some people are just fucking HOT.)
And yes, when women give bad ratings to bro-media, it's "fighting the media's misogynist bias." But when men give bad ratings to chick-media, it's "sabotage." (Anyone who's studied marketing or communications knows that media is like food...not all cuisines appeal to all groups.)
I can't believe they weren't doing this to begin with; it seems incredibly irresponsible to host a software repository in this day and age but not make sure that you're not distributing malware in the process.
Another way that SourceForge Media is fixing broken things...way to go!