I have no idea, but Netcraft has been confirming (or not confirming things) have been dying so long that Netcraft themselves have become a punchline to me.
Because, other than their periodic confirming that something is dying, I have no idea of who the hell they are or why I'm supposed to care about what they tell us.
When I see "Netcraft confirms it", it's just another bad internet meme to me. Are they actually relevant to anything?
Combine that with the fact that Solaris is now in the hands of Oracle, who are squeezing out everybody who doesn't have a support contract and pissing off people who used to use it... or that HPUX is still in the hands of HP (where technology goes to die)... and what's even left?
AIX is still around, but I have no idea of how widespread. Beyond that, I'm hard pressed to think of another commercial version of UNIX I've encountered. (That doesn't mean they don't exist, but they were never in any shops I was in.)
That pretty much leaves Linux as the primary UNIX-like-thing for most people.
Just because you were right doesn't make you not a paranoid loon
And being a paranoid loon doesn't mean you're wrong either -- sadly, it's gotten to the point where you could assume if there's no bloody toilet paper it's due to a spy agency.
Because every single one of them is ramping up towards the full surveillance society with every step.
No, no it isn't. Guantanamo is in Cuba, and the only reason it's there is because the US pushed the Platt Ammendment into the Cuban Constitution against their will.
The Cubans don't want them there, and they haven't cashed any of the checks for the 'rental'.
Guantanamo is actually a base the US keeps in Cuba against the will of the Cubans -- they view it as an occupation by a foreign government. It most certainly is not in the US -- they use it because it's outside of the US and they can argue that normal laws don't apply.
But don't pretend Guantanamo is physically on the US soil, or that the Cubans have any interest in keeping it there.
So, the only way to get our representatives to take note of civil rights abuses is to have them affect a protected class.
Ideally, directly apply all of the laws they pass to them and their families first and see if they get it.
That they're now acting like it's a shock this law could be abused... well, that's either posturing, or evidence they weren't listening.
But taking the partner of a journalist and detaining and interviewing based on terrorism laws should be blatant enough to make them notice -- they should be capable of noticing before this, but they never seem to be able to realize the stupidity of the laws they write.
I can't wait to hear how someone is going to justify use of terror laws to detain and question the partner of a journalist.
From what I've seen of the news coverage of this, this is pretty egregious and probably somewhat indefensible.
This is just more over-reach by government agencies who think they can do anything they want -- and quite possibly in response to a direct request from the US to put pressure on the journalist involved.
Since McAfee is an Intel subsidiary claims like this should have a law, the Moore or Less law.
I'm going to go with plain old common sense -- never trust the numbers about the scope of a problem from an entity which sells you a product to combat the problem. Because, predictably, those numbers are going to be bullshit.
Similarly, TSA and the spying agencies... also full of shit when the tell you how good of a job they're doing and all they've achieved.
I can't guarantee the same for manufactuers who's bottom line is in direct opposition to maintaining multi-year old devices.
Which is why, as much as Android is a cool platform, the fragmentation it has gone through has made so many variations as to mean only a small set at any given time have all of the needed updates.
I can almost guarantee you, most cell phone carriers are still selling devices with ancient versions of Android -- and neither the carrier nor the manufacturer gives a damn, they just want you to buy another device. When I was getting my current cell phone, they had plenty of Samsung devices running Android 2.x or something, and one lower-spec HTC which was running 4.x and could be upgraded.
Which is why I decided when I was in the market for an Android tablet to go with the Nexus, because those have the best possible chance of getting updates to fix stuff like this.
This is why I wouldn't ever consider having my cell phone be something which can directly access my money.
I don't trust the makers to competently build in security, and I believe that once everyone knows your cell phone is likely to be tied to your bank account, it's a soft target.
They keep trying to find new ways to make it more 'convenient' to use these things to spend money, but 'convenient' in this case means insecure and fraught with privacy issues (and extra service fees if they can get away with it).
Same with that tap to pay mechanism... wow, you mean anybody with my physical card can spend my money without authorization? Gee, sign me up for that.
Tech companies want to make a product or app for pretty much everything -- and a lot of them I find myself asking "who would want that?".
Now, mind the steps while you're leaving my lawn, and don't trip on the sprinkler.
So, fake people want fake people to impress fake people..... Why I don't "tweet"
Ah, but once the fake people impress the fake people, then real people see you as someone with all of those fake followers and begin to follow you for real. It's sheep herding.
And then the real fun begins, because you're now a credible entity. It's perfect for self promotion and astroturfing.
That people do this has been well covered in the news for the last few years.
I've not done twitter before...., so, can someone tell me why exactly people would create "fake" accounts for following themselves?
They don't create them on their own.
People like to point to # of Twitter followers as some measure of popularity.
So politicians, bloggers, and companies who want to look like more people are following them on Twitter pay a service which does this. Most of them are fake accounts which exist only to follow people and pad out their numbers.
This is about perception and marketing, and someone willing to pay to make it look like lots more people follow you. Which, apparently can have the run-on effect of making real followers wonder what you're all about.
You'll get my Freecell when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands!
Well, if you don't pay enough attention in class, you might have cold hands because you got crappy grades since you were taking notes on a laptop and can't afford to pay rent.;-)
Multi-tasking is a plausible explanation, but I can posit another one quite easily.
If instead of focusing on writing the content you're trying to do any form of formatting, layout, entering equations, trying to do diagrams -- you are already multi-tasking and part of your attention is on the device instead of what you're listening to.
I've tried taking notes on a laptop, and I found it distracting and more trouble than it's worth. If you can see the Prof is drawing a quadrant or a graph, you can do that by hand far faster on a sheet of paper.
Maybe someone can do it, but for me, I find that good old fashioned paper is still the most effective way for me to take notes and commit stuff to paper and I can annotate it later.
I just don't think the input techniques we have available to us are anywhere near as effective as pen and paper.
My guess? Give someone a laptop which has no internet connectivity while they're taking notes, and with only the application open they're directly using -- and they'll still do worse.
It also won't happen because it's so easy for companies to argue that the information is voluntarily being shared with the company. And the thing is, the company is actually correct in observing this.
Of course, that's bullshit, but they'll claim it.
As an experiment, I just went to the LA Times website. By your theory, if my bullshit blockers hadn't blocked revsci.com, gigya.com, newsinc.com, jumptime.com, and brightcove.com -- then I will have voluntarily provided information to these fuckers.
So, no, just because sites put web bugs, ads, polls, and all sorts of 3rd party shit in their web pages that might not be obvious -- that doesn't mean there was anything voluntary (or even informed) in this. It means a sneaky bunch of marketing assholes are in there without asking me, and they feel self entitled to do so.
I recently got to watch a MS rep doing a presentation about the awesomeness of Win8, and he really seemed to believe it was all that.
Have you ever met a rep from a company who wasn't so besotted by the Kool-Aid as to be a useless source of information? If they're paid a commission, even more so. They're paid to be enthusiastic, not objective.
We once had a vendor rep offer to give a demo to our user group about an upcoming product release.
I flat out told them there was no way in hell I'd let a salesman talk to the users, because they might actually believe what he's telling them, and we'd have to be the ones to deal with the mess and point out how all of those claimed features didn't really exist. They didn't seem to like that, but oddly I didn't seem to care, and my manager laughed when I said it and agreed we would be the ones to do any user communications and not them.
Vendor reps are a necessary evil, but that doesn't mean you should entirely trust them or let them control the message. Because the next thing you know, the CTO is asking you where the flying car is that he was promised.
Is the government declaring Facebook a national security threat because of all the information people post on it, and having it shut down.
Or enacting laws on what data companies can collect about you and what they're legally allowed to do with it. You know, actual privacy laws and laws around data security.
But that won't happen -- because it would cut into corporate profits, and because it would cut down on some of the sources the NSA themselves use.
This in the end will be DARPA saying "how can we collect all of this information while still trying to keep it out of the hands of them." And nothing at all will change.
Anyone with a fanny pack is either a tourist or a bum.
Or missed the memo. I see a surprising amount of adults who are neither of those things still wearing them.
There seems to be an odd correlation with mullets, sweaters with wolves on them, and some striking visual evidence they still fondly yearn for the 80s.
What causes some people to have such weaponised digestive tracts?
Lack of exposure, mostly.
If you don't eat something like that regularly, your body has a hell of a time trying to deal with it. If you haven't built up the right stuff to digest it, some of those starches cause some pretty unpleasant side effects. As a long-ish term vegetarian, I've definitely found I have to go through a periodic adjustment period to something new. And it can definitely be a little toxic.
It's like spicy food... if you eat it all the time, your body can probably deal with it. If you don't, well, you might need some aloe the next day.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea, but Netcraft has been confirming (or not confirming things) have been dying so long that Netcraft themselves have become a punchline to me.
Because, other than their periodic confirming that something is dying, I have no idea of who the hell they are or why I'm supposed to care about what they tell us.
When I see "Netcraft confirms it", it's just another bad internet meme to me. Are they actually relevant to anything?
Combine that with the fact that Solaris is now in the hands of Oracle, who are squeezing out everybody who doesn't have a support contract and pissing off people who used to use it ... or that HPUX is still in the hands of HP (where technology goes to die) ... and what's even left?
AIX is still around, but I have no idea of how widespread. Beyond that, I'm hard pressed to think of another commercial version of UNIX I've encountered. (That doesn't mean they don't exist, but they were never in any shops I was in.)
That pretty much leaves Linux as the primary UNIX-like-thing for most people.
And being a paranoid loon doesn't mean you're wrong either -- sadly, it's gotten to the point where you could assume if there's no bloody toilet paper it's due to a spy agency.
Because every single one of them is ramping up towards the full surveillance society with every step.
No, no it isn't. Guantanamo is in Cuba, and the only reason it's there is because the US pushed the Platt Ammendment into the Cuban Constitution against their will.
The Cubans don't want them there, and they haven't cashed any of the checks for the 'rental'.
Guantanamo is actually a base the US keeps in Cuba against the will of the Cubans -- they view it as an occupation by a foreign government. It most certainly is not in the US -- they use it because it's outside of the US and they can argue that normal laws don't apply.
But don't pretend Guantanamo is physically on the US soil, or that the Cubans have any interest in keeping it there.
Ideally, directly apply all of the laws they pass to them and their families first and see if they get it.
That they're now acting like it's a shock this law could be abused ... well, that's either posturing, or evidence they weren't listening.
But taking the partner of a journalist and detaining and interviewing based on terrorism laws should be blatant enough to make them notice -- they should be capable of noticing before this, but they never seem to be able to realize the stupidity of the laws they write.
I can't wait to hear how someone is going to justify use of terror laws to detain and question the partner of a journalist.
From what I've seen of the news coverage of this, this is pretty egregious and probably somewhat indefensible.
This is just more over-reach by government agencies who think they can do anything they want -- and quite possibly in response to a direct request from the US to put pressure on the journalist involved.
I'm going to go with plain old common sense -- never trust the numbers about the scope of a problem from an entity which sells you a product to combat the problem. Because, predictably, those numbers are going to be bullshit.
Similarly, TSA and the spying agencies ... also full of shit when the tell you how good of a job they're doing and all they've achieved.
So, numbers reported about a threat were inflated by an entity who profits off the perception of that threat.
Gee, I'm totally shocked at this. Nobody would ever put out alarmist numbers.
Part of me suspects that someone knew at the time these numbers were crap, but decided they made for a good story and went with them.
Assholes.
Which to me pokes holes in the theory this is up to the consumer to be responsible for.
The vast majority of people looking to buy a smart phone won't likely know much about what versions of the OS the phone is running.
It's like selling a product you know might catch fire and kill someone -- you can't just say it's up to the consumer to not buy that model.
Which is why, as much as Android is a cool platform, the fragmentation it has gone through has made so many variations as to mean only a small set at any given time have all of the needed updates.
I can almost guarantee you, most cell phone carriers are still selling devices with ancient versions of Android -- and neither the carrier nor the manufacturer gives a damn, they just want you to buy another device. When I was getting my current cell phone, they had plenty of Samsung devices running Android 2.x or something, and one lower-spec HTC which was running 4.x and could be upgraded.
Which is why I decided when I was in the market for an Android tablet to go with the Nexus, because those have the best possible chance of getting updates to fix stuff like this.
You know, it's not even bitcoin.
The entire crypto on the platform is vulnerable from the looks of it.
So, I would assume if there were other digital wallet type things on Android, they would be subject to the exact same vulnerability.
This is why I wouldn't ever consider having my cell phone be something which can directly access my money.
I don't trust the makers to competently build in security, and I believe that once everyone knows your cell phone is likely to be tied to your bank account, it's a soft target.
They keep trying to find new ways to make it more 'convenient' to use these things to spend money, but 'convenient' in this case means insecure and fraught with privacy issues (and extra service fees if they can get away with it).
Same with that tap to pay mechanism ... wow, you mean anybody with my physical card can spend my money without authorization? Gee, sign me up for that.
Tech companies want to make a product or app for pretty much everything -- and a lot of them I find myself asking "who would want that?".
Now, mind the steps while you're leaving my lawn, and don't trip on the sprinkler.
No, but twitter followers are like sheep.
I cite your own signature:
If you can get some of the herd moving in your direction, you might get more to follow. Which is why people pay for fake Twitter followers.
Ah, but once the fake people impress the fake people, then real people see you as someone with all of those fake followers and begin to follow you for real. It's sheep herding.
And then the real fun begins, because you're now a credible entity. It's perfect for self promotion and astroturfing.
That people do this has been well covered in the news for the last few years.
They don't create them on their own.
People like to point to # of Twitter followers as some measure of popularity.
So politicians, bloggers, and companies who want to look like more people are following them on Twitter pay a service which does this. Most of them are fake accounts which exist only to follow people and pad out their numbers.
This is about perception and marketing, and someone willing to pay to make it look like lots more people follow you. Which, apparently can have the run-on effect of making real followers wonder what you're all about.
Pssst ... it's rote not wrote. Typical engineer.
Well, if you don't pay enough attention in class, you might have cold hands because you got crappy grades since you were taking notes on a laptop and can't afford to pay rent. ;-)
Multi-tasking is a plausible explanation, but I can posit another one quite easily.
If instead of focusing on writing the content you're trying to do any form of formatting, layout, entering equations, trying to do diagrams -- you are already multi-tasking and part of your attention is on the device instead of what you're listening to.
I've tried taking notes on a laptop, and I found it distracting and more trouble than it's worth. If you can see the Prof is drawing a quadrant or a graph, you can do that by hand far faster on a sheet of paper.
Maybe someone can do it, but for me, I find that good old fashioned paper is still the most effective way for me to take notes and commit stuff to paper and I can annotate it later.
I just don't think the input techniques we have available to us are anywhere near as effective as pen and paper.
My guess? Give someone a laptop which has no internet connectivity while they're taking notes, and with only the application open they're directly using -- and they'll still do worse.
Some firewall rules, some hosts, and some extensions.
Firefox: NoScript, AdBlockPlus, DoNotTrackMe
Chrome: ScriptSafe, DoNotTrackMe, AdBlockPlus
Of course, that's bullshit, but they'll claim it.
As an experiment, I just went to the LA Times website. By your theory, if my bullshit blockers hadn't blocked revsci.com, gigya.com, newsinc.com, jumptime.com, and brightcove.com -- then I will have voluntarily provided information to these fuckers.
So, no, just because sites put web bugs, ads, polls, and all sorts of 3rd party shit in their web pages that might not be obvious -- that doesn't mean there was anything voluntary (or even informed) in this. It means a sneaky bunch of marketing assholes are in there without asking me, and they feel self entitled to do so.
Have you ever met a rep from a company who wasn't so besotted by the Kool-Aid as to be a useless source of information? If they're paid a commission, even more so. They're paid to be enthusiastic, not objective.
We once had a vendor rep offer to give a demo to our user group about an upcoming product release.
I flat out told them there was no way in hell I'd let a salesman talk to the users, because they might actually believe what he's telling them, and we'd have to be the ones to deal with the mess and point out how all of those claimed features didn't really exist. They didn't seem to like that, but oddly I didn't seem to care, and my manager laughed when I said it and agreed we would be the ones to do any user communications and not them.
Vendor reps are a necessary evil, but that doesn't mean you should entirely trust them or let them control the message. Because the next thing you know, the CTO is asking you where the flying car is that he was promised.
Who can trivially demand it from the corporations we mean by 'big data'.
As long as those companies are legally allowed to collect it, the NSA is legally allowed to demand it from them.
Or enacting laws on what data companies can collect about you and what they're legally allowed to do with it. You know, actual privacy laws and laws around data security.
But that won't happen -- because it would cut into corporate profits, and because it would cut down on some of the sources the NSA themselves use.
This in the end will be DARPA saying "how can we collect all of this information while still trying to keep it out of the hands of them." And nothing at all will change.
Or missed the memo. I see a surprising amount of adults who are neither of those things still wearing them.
There seems to be an odd correlation with mullets, sweaters with wolves on them, and some striking visual evidence they still fondly yearn for the 80s.
Lack of exposure, mostly.
If you don't eat something like that regularly, your body has a hell of a time trying to deal with it. If you haven't built up the right stuff to digest it, some of those starches cause some pretty unpleasant side effects. As a long-ish term vegetarian, I've definitely found I have to go through a periodic adjustment period to something new. And it can definitely be a little toxic.
It's like spicy food ... if you eat it all the time, your body can probably deal with it. If you don't, well, you might need some aloe the next day. ;-)