They've added 1.5 to the version, of course it has matured.
I remember over the years companies taking v1.1 and renaming it v 8.1 or something equally stupid... because clearly lying about the major version number means the product has matured.
Version numbers are cheap, and in the hands of marketing they can say anything you want them to.;-)
Which is why I said When you're a billionaire doing such things, you get to decide which one goes to the museum.
He can stroke his ego and waggle his metaphorical penis all he wants... he's the one footing the bill.
I'm not required to like the man. But he is pushing spaceflight forward, and he can crow about it all he wants -- right up to putting stuff in museums if they want it.
Honestly, I have no idea why people accept sites should by default be allowed to run scripts, or the 15 sites they cross link to should run scripts just because you loaded the page.
And, FYI, I've seen an increasing number of sites which render their content with javscript, and you only see a blank page without it. Of course, if you know how to view the page source and don't much care about the formatting the text is usually right there.
Me, I'd just as soon punch the average web site administrator in the nose as assume I have any reason to allow them to run scripts. My default position on scripts is "piss off", and I'll enable them if I think I care or trust you. But your third parties? They can always piss off.
You can do these things, but you have to take ownership of it, and you have to be fairly diligent about it.
My mom? Probably not so much.
So, someone came up with a strategy whereby if they just said "we set teh cookies", then they're covered. That it might be cookies from 10 external partners which add nothing at all to your overall experience, well, that's a little detail to gloss over.
I block the heck out of this crap, use extensions to block stuff, and keep blacklisting stuff or adding rules to Chrome. But I wouldn't expect your average user to be willing to do that.
The problem is the default position of the web is everybody wants you to run the browser in the most insecure, wide open method possible to allow their precious pile of shit to work as envisioned.
Me, I see a page which tells me I need to enable javascript, or turn on cookies... and the back button is all they'll see. Because I have no intention of trusting most web sites, and not at all their third part ad/analytics companies.
So shit I don't allow (popups and scripts) being used to tell me that something else I don't allow (cookies) is being used to fool people into clicking ads they don't even see, from companies we shouldn't trust, so we can see ads for stuff we don't want, so some asshole can get revenue for ad clicks?
And people wonder why we keep saying allowing arbitrary sites to execute scripts and Flash isn't a completely moronic practice??
I'm sorry, but EVERYTHING about internet ads and how most sites work is in direct opposition to sensible security practice.
Sorry, but this is precisely why I will continue to block the hell out of any form of ads, because I have no choice but to assume any 3rd party actor called in from a site I am visiting isn't a hostile actor... and with sufficiently advanced incompetence, "hostile" takes on a very broad meaning.
The internet got so thoroughly broken when ads came along it isn't funny. Because they seem to want to force us to use terribly insecure technologies on the chance that some small subset of the shit on the interwebs is what we want and can be trusted.
I know actual teachers, with multiple degrees in the field of education... and quite frankly I trust them a whole lot more than I trust the self-serving actions of a corporation who ultimately wants more cheap labor.
I don't trust the motivations here, and I can damned well tell you this isn't evidence based policy... it's "do what we ask because we're throwing money at you" and it sounds cool.
This is claiming something to be the way of the future and somehow getting people to follow you hook, line, and sinker into believing you have any idea of what works and what will educate children.
Why don't we let experts on education tell us what children need to know, instead of multinational corporations telling us what they want kids to know for their own personally tailored "workforce of the future"?
These kids are being set up to be wage slaves which serve the interests of the companies.
I sincerely doubt any of these companies truly gives a fuck about the future of these kids.
Five year olds don't need to learn "pair programming".
So much self-serving bullshit which has nothing at all to do with educating children.
Just a thought, but so far the one stage they recovered is going to a museum
As much as anything, SpaceX is a monument to Musk's ego.
And the first one of these to succeed has as much PR value as it does technical value, probably more. By putting it in a museum his place as a pioneer of private space travel is assured.
This is as much about waving around his metaphorical penis as it is about space flight. When you're a billionaire doing such things, you get to decide which one goes to the museum.
This should be awesome, Lenovo and Google, two companies I totally trust with my privacy and security.
No, wait, the other one... Lenovo who installs spyware and Google who wants to monetize every fact about you, tied in with whatever other ad and alaytics they can jam into this.
I've gone through FAR too much trouble to block and disable all forms of internet videos.
If TFA doesn't have text, I don't give a crap.
it requires pressing a safety button AND flipping the switch. So there is pretty much zero chance
If there's one thing the internet has taught me over the last 20 years or so... rule #34 pretty much guarantees your "zero chance" is going to be a near statistical certainty.;-)
Any sufficiently... um... "vigorous and unorthodox activity"... will always fall outside of what you expect to happen. But the ability to predict the depths of human weirdness is impossible.
Someone, somewhere is doing exactly that just to get started, and there's probably a video of it.
You've just described good release and change management. It's not unique to Drupal.
And you would be utterly amazed at just how many places don't do such things. And, depending on the shop, if you feel agile works for you and you're not overly risk averse, you almost eschew such things -- because you are manly and if it breaks such is life.
I don't use Drupal, and never have. But I do come from backgrounds where you go through a couple of promotions from a dev through to a prod, and test at each step. I do this because I've worked in regulated industries which are well beyond 'risk averse'. I learned to be paranoid in shops where lots of money and possibly human lives were on the line.
But you would be utterly amazed at just how many people think it's a waste of time, or who will make live updates to a prod system. Far too many in fact. Some days I'm pretty sure Slashdot does it to their detriment.
Those people can either tolerate some risk, or their employers aren't fully informed of the risks being taken on their behalf. Many places risk is unthinkable.
Never underestimate just how widespread poor administrator practices are... a lot of people are lazy, don't care, or are so over-confident you can't but expect them to drive off a cliff.
I've seen far too many cowboys who always say "it will be fine" or think proper release engineering is a waste of time... in my experience those people end up red faced and frantic when they finally do hose something beyond easy repair.
It all depends on the industry you're in, and the consequences of failure. The problem is something you get some idiot who came from a place where the consequences would be minor who come along and fuck up at a place where the consequences aren't.
Any system can fail spectacularly if you just wing it, do stuff in your live system, and assume you'll never have any problems. Some systems just help you fail more than others.
No, but maybe just how damned insecure these things are, and just how much they're the embodiment of planned obsolescence, will finally start to sink in and people will demand better security and life cycle support.
Instead of buying a half assed product which gets abandoned almost immediately and which has gaping security holes in it... and being expected to just buy a new TV.
A TV which has no smarts can't become obsolete or get hacked.
No matter what my TV thinks, it gets HDMI inputs, and otherwise doesn't have any say in channel selection or volume... it's literally used as a dumb monitor without sound.
And it will never get hacked, compromised, stuck with out of date software, or have features be removed from it by someone else.
This crap is exactly what I expected when they first announced smart TV... it's amazing how many people do suddenly think this is news.
This is the third news story about this I've seen today... two of them in the mainstream press.
Maybe people are finally realizing the giant piles of crap their "smart" TVs are after they start getting malware or otherwise become obsolete and abandoned by the maker.
Yup. Of course, the traditional part is having the wife get her tubes tied during the 2nd birth procedure.
Well, on behalf of those of us who have never wanted kids... I've been pondering getting the, um... nipper nicked?... and take it out of the equation entirely.
LOL, maybe a little with the Cracker Jack box... but, no, I really wasn't kidding.
For those of us old enough to remember when a gigabyte was a theoretical number nobody would ever encounter... you can buy what used to be astronomical amounts of storage as an afterthought in the express checkout at Wal Mart for a couple of bucks.
I'm afraid these days to know how cheap, small, and ubiquitous a 1GHz chip is... because there was a time that was considered munitions grade hardware which was covered under export controls.
A less than perfect track record, you say? Well, then it MUST be completely worthless! Just like all other forms of birth control!
No, I'm saying that if the switch is on or off depending on various rubbing of your nuts... unless there's a blinking light or some other cue to let you know the state it's in, there's a very good chance that at any given point it may not be in the same state you thought it was.
So, if before and after coitus you can check that it was blinking, and know it didn't change (not sure how).. great, run wild. You can selectively inseminate.
But if you can't tell, it doesn't serve much purpose.
I guess you count have it emit a loud beep when it switched state. Otherwise it's just Schoedinger's nuts.;-)
I have no idea if this is meant to be "I can knock up with wife but not the mistress", or you must book several months in advance to have the doctor flip the switch on your balls.
LOL, yeah... my thinking was "it was a true fact, not an assumption".
Throw in some fundamentally new pieces to this (which as I gather is suddenly everything has it own damned CPU)... and, yes, the rules will change.
Hundreds of CPUs spread across devices will cumulatively have more CPU power than the single CPU which has always been at the top of the food chain. All that really means is everything now has a ton of embedded compute power which previously wasn't there.
Things which used to be classed as supercomputers can now practically be had in a Cracker Jack box. This will change things.
That's when the real fun started. They didn't realize that their network switch also had a DHCP server with private network addresses that cut every workstation on the segment off from the corporate network and the Internet. A network technician spent a day tracking them all down..
LOL, I've seen similar.
Years ago a manager couldn't get more network drops in his office, so he brought in a little router for himself.
In another entire office, but part of the corporate network, his collision with 192.168.*.* caused the corporate Exchange servers to keel over -- I'm still fuzzy on the exact details of that.
The next day an IT guy hand delivered him a 8-port switch which didn't perform DHCP... and a very LOUD announcement in email stating "thou shalt not bring in thine own networking equipment" was enacted.
It was kind of funny, caused a hell of a mess, and took a LONG time for people to figure out what happened.
Slashdot Mirror
They've added 1.5 to the version, of course it has matured.
I remember over the years companies taking v1.1 and renaming it v 8.1 or something equally stupid ... because clearly lying about the major version number means the product has matured.
Version numbers are cheap, and in the hands of marketing they can say anything you want them to. ;-)
Oh, for sure. I don't disagree at all.
Which is why I said When you're a billionaire doing such things, you get to decide which one goes to the museum.
He can stroke his ego and waggle his metaphorical penis all he wants ... he's the one footing the bill.
I'm not required to like the man. But he is pushing spaceflight forward, and he can crow about it all he wants -- right up to putting stuff in museums if they want it.
What's Clarity Ray?
Honestly, I have no idea why people accept sites should by default be allowed to run scripts, or the 15 sites they cross link to should run scripts just because you loaded the page.
And, FYI, I've seen an increasing number of sites which render their content with javscript, and you only see a blank page without it. Of course, if you know how to view the page source and don't much care about the formatting the text is usually right there.
Me, I'd just as soon punch the average web site administrator in the nose as assume I have any reason to allow them to run scripts. My default position on scripts is "piss off", and I'll enable them if I think I care or trust you. But your third parties? They can always piss off.
You can do these things, but you have to take ownership of it, and you have to be fairly diligent about it.
My mom? Probably not so much.
So, someone came up with a strategy whereby if they just said "we set teh cookies", then they're covered. That it might be cookies from 10 external partners which add nothing at all to your overall experience, well, that's a little detail to gloss over.
I block the heck out of this crap, use extensions to block stuff, and keep blacklisting stuff or adding rules to Chrome. But I wouldn't expect your average user to be willing to do that.
The problem is the default position of the web is everybody wants you to run the browser in the most insecure, wide open method possible to allow their precious pile of shit to work as envisioned.
Me, I see a page which tells me I need to enable javascript, or turn on cookies ... and the back button is all they'll see. Because I have no intention of trusting most web sites, and not at all their third part ad/analytics companies.
So shit I don't allow (popups and scripts) being used to tell me that something else I don't allow (cookies) is being used to fool people into clicking ads they don't even see, from companies we shouldn't trust, so we can see ads for stuff we don't want, so some asshole can get revenue for ad clicks?
And people wonder why we keep saying allowing arbitrary sites to execute scripts and Flash isn't a completely moronic practice??
I'm sorry, but EVERYTHING about internet ads and how most sites work is in direct opposition to sensible security practice.
Sorry, but this is precisely why I will continue to block the hell out of any form of ads, because I have no choice but to assume any 3rd party actor called in from a site I am visiting isn't a hostile actor ... and with sufficiently advanced incompetence, "hostile" takes on a very broad meaning.
The internet got so thoroughly broken when ads came along it isn't funny. Because they seem to want to force us to use terribly insecure technologies on the chance that some small subset of the shit on the interwebs is what we want and can be trusted.
I know actual teachers, with multiple degrees in the field of education ... and quite frankly I trust them a whole lot more than I trust the self-serving actions of a corporation who ultimately wants more cheap labor.
I don't trust the motivations here, and I can damned well tell you this isn't evidence based policy ... it's "do what we ask because we're throwing money at you" and it sounds cool.
This is claiming something to be the way of the future and somehow getting people to follow you hook, line, and sinker into believing you have any idea of what works and what will educate children.
Why don't we let experts on education tell us what children need to know, instead of multinational corporations telling us what they want kids to know for their own personally tailored "workforce of the future"?
These kids are being set up to be wage slaves which serve the interests of the companies.
I sincerely doubt any of these companies truly gives a fuck about the future of these kids.
Five year olds don't need to learn "pair programming".
So much self-serving bullshit which has nothing at all to do with educating children.
As much as anything, SpaceX is a monument to Musk's ego.
And the first one of these to succeed has as much PR value as it does technical value, probably more. By putting it in a museum his place as a pioneer of private space travel is assured.
This is as much about waving around his metaphorical penis as it is about space flight. When you're a billionaire doing such things, you get to decide which one goes to the museum.
This should be awesome, Lenovo and Google, two companies I totally trust with my privacy and security.
No, wait, the other one ... Lenovo who installs spyware and Google who wants to monetize every fact about you, tied in with whatever other ad and alaytics they can jam into this.
Hell to the no.
I've gone through FAR too much trouble to block and disable all forms of internet videos.
If TFA doesn't have text, I don't give a crap.
If there's one thing the internet has taught me over the last 20 years or so ... rule #34 pretty much guarantees your "zero chance" is going to be a near statistical certainty. ;-)
Any sufficiently ... um ... "vigorous and unorthodox activity" ... will always fall outside of what you expect to happen. But the ability to predict the depths of human weirdness is impossible.
Someone, somewhere is doing exactly that just to get started, and there's probably a video of it.
Last sentence, 4th paragraph. ;-)
I did take that swipe for those days when it suddenly says "Slashdot is in offline mode and we currently suck".
Slashdot absolutely isn't afraid to screw up a live site.
You've just described good release and change management. It's not unique to Drupal.
And you would be utterly amazed at just how many places don't do such things. And, depending on the shop, if you feel agile works for you and you're not overly risk averse, you almost eschew such things -- because you are manly and if it breaks such is life.
I don't use Drupal, and never have. But I do come from backgrounds where you go through a couple of promotions from a dev through to a prod, and test at each step. I do this because I've worked in regulated industries which are well beyond 'risk averse'. I learned to be paranoid in shops where lots of money and possibly human lives were on the line.
But you would be utterly amazed at just how many people think it's a waste of time, or who will make live updates to a prod system. Far too many in fact. Some days I'm pretty sure Slashdot does it to their detriment.
Those people can either tolerate some risk, or their employers aren't fully informed of the risks being taken on their behalf. Many places risk is unthinkable.
Never underestimate just how widespread poor administrator practices are ... a lot of people are lazy, don't care, or are so over-confident you can't but expect them to drive off a cliff.
I've seen far too many cowboys who always say "it will be fine" or think proper release engineering is a waste of time ... in my experience those people end up red faced and frantic when they finally do hose something beyond easy repair.
It all depends on the industry you're in, and the consequences of failure. The problem is something you get some idiot who came from a place where the consequences would be minor who come along and fuck up at a place where the consequences aren't.
Any system can fail spectacularly if you just wing it, do stuff in your live system, and assume you'll never have any problems. Some systems just help you fail more than others.
No, but maybe just how damned insecure these things are, and just how much they're the embodiment of planned obsolescence, will finally start to sink in and people will demand better security and life cycle support.
Instead of buying a half assed product which gets abandoned almost immediately and which has gaping security holes in it ... and being expected to just buy a new TV.
A TV which has no smarts can't become obsolete or get hacked.
No matter what my TV thinks, it gets HDMI inputs, and otherwise doesn't have any say in channel selection or volume ... it's literally used as a dumb monitor without sound.
And it will never get hacked, compromised, stuck with out of date software, or have features be removed from it by someone else.
This crap is exactly what I expected when they first announced smart TV ... it's amazing how many people do suddenly think this is news.
This is the third news story about this I've seen today ... two of them in the mainstream press.
Maybe people are finally realizing the giant piles of crap their "smart" TVs are after they start getting malware or otherwise become obsolete and abandoned by the maker.
That would be a good thing.
One wonders ... what, precisely, is the standards of evaluating the "worst porn parody ever"?
I think I'd rather not know.
I tried it, it put my back out for a week, and I nearly lost an eye.
Wait, are we talking about the same thing?
Well, on behalf of those of us who have never wanted kids ... I've been pondering getting the, um ... nipper nicked? ... and take it out of the equation entirely.
LOL, maybe a little with the Cracker Jack box ... but, no, I really wasn't kidding.
For those of us old enough to remember when a gigabyte was a theoretical number nobody would ever encounter ... you can buy what used to be astronomical amounts of storage as an afterthought in the express checkout at Wal Mart for a couple of bucks.
I'm afraid these days to know how cheap, small, and ubiquitous a 1GHz chip is ... because there was a time that was considered munitions grade hardware which was covered under export controls.
No, I'm saying that if the switch is on or off depending on various rubbing of your nuts ... unless there's a blinking light or some other cue to let you know the state it's in, there's a very good chance that at any given point it may not be in the same state you thought it was.
So, if before and after coitus you can check that it was blinking, and know it didn't change (not sure how) .. great, run wild. You can selectively inseminate.
But if you can't tell, it doesn't serve much purpose.
I guess you count have it emit a loud beep when it switched state. Otherwise it's just Schoedinger's nuts. ;-)
I have no idea if this is meant to be "I can knock up with wife but not the mistress", or you must book several months in advance to have the doctor flip the switch on your balls.
LOL ... Well played!
I'm sure this has a high likelihood of utterly failing, being forgotten, or otherwise having a less than perfect track record.
You might as well to pull it out and hope that works.
People will forget, or during various ... er ... activities this will get switched on/off by accident.
No no no ... Desinas in victimam.
(And, no, I have no idea if that's right, I just had Google do it. ;-)
A system which has good performance is said to be performant.
Your own link says this has been in used for at least since the 70s.
It's hardly a new term. It may only come up in specific contexts related to computing performance, but it ain't new.
LOL, yeah ... my thinking was "it was a true fact, not an assumption".
Throw in some fundamentally new pieces to this (which as I gather is suddenly everything has it own damned CPU) ... and, yes, the rules will change.
Hundreds of CPUs spread across devices will cumulatively have more CPU power than the single CPU which has always been at the top of the food chain. All that really means is everything now has a ton of embedded compute power which previously wasn't there.
Things which used to be classed as supercomputers can now practically be had in a Cracker Jack box. This will change things.
LOL, I've seen similar.
Years ago a manager couldn't get more network drops in his office, so he brought in a little router for himself.
In another entire office, but part of the corporate network, his collision with 192.168.*.* caused the corporate Exchange servers to keel over -- I'm still fuzzy on the exact details of that.
The next day an IT guy hand delivered him a 8-port switch which didn't perform DHCP ... and a very LOUD announcement in email stating "thou shalt not bring in thine own networking equipment" was enacted.
It was kind of funny, caused a hell of a mess, and took a LONG time for people to figure out what happened.