Well, it's a big thing here (in Holland). You host your stuff/in the cloud/ or/on premises/. Even American consultants of cloud companies talk about/on premise/ here.
And,yes, on-site would be a better expression, but it doesn't sound quite as puffed up. I also hear 'on prem'. Well, short is better than wrong I guess.
How about the very widespread habit of saying 'on premise' when people actually mean 'on premises'? I'm not a native speaker, but when pointing out that mistake to colleagues (yeah, I'm a jerk) I actually found it's widespread among native speakers too.
As a thank you for 'helping making Slashdot great' I'm allowed to disable ads. Well, I've never seen as many ads. Sure, they're all labeld 'top deals' and 'sponsored content' but they're ads cleverly designed to avoid my ad blocker.
I suggest you remove the disable ads checkbox because it's useless crap. I wonder when you'll start serving malware to make a little extra money.
That precedent's already been set ages ago hasn't it? How is searching your phone different from searching your house or vault or mail account or tapping your phone or internet connection?
Sure, it would be a precedent. But the courts can already order a house search or access to your gmail account (heck, even mine and I'm not even an American) or the key to the iCloud servers. That's generally accepted.
It would be much more interesting to see if they could stop Apple from creating a device that even they themselves couldn't crack. The 20 times and you're out check could be done inside the hardware chip.
As far as Apple is concerned I'm sure they're milking it for all the publicity value that's in it.
"not force Apple to create a tool to allow the FBI subvert everybody else's security at-will."
If I understand correctly they want Apple to use their signing key to 'update' the phone's software with a version that doesn't delete the encryption key after 20 attempts.
Obviously the universe shouldn't exist in the first place. If it does, what does it prove? That there is a god. But wait, a god shouldn't exist either.
Wasn't there some guy named Goedel who theorized something about systems being unable to prove their own consistency?
However, there's been a big scandal in my country about a pedophile who worked in a childcare center. It's rare for a man to work in childcare. This man (he was also gay) did, and the parents were all patting themselves on the back about how tolerant and grown up they were. They even let him babysit there children. Turns out he was a pedophile who specialized in toddlers (who couldn't speak up for themselves).
I believe that women are not entirely safe either, but the kind of abuse they get into is typically less predatory than what you see in these guys. Personally I would be very hesitant to let a man or boy babysit my children.
The advice - sexist as it may be - is sound. The well being of my loved ones comes first, any desire not to be racist of sexist takes a back seat to that. And I'm not even ashamed of that;-)
"The one safety tip I try to teach my kids is that if they get lost to immediately walk up to the first stranger they see and ask for help. Don't wait for a stranger to come to you. If you pick the stranger then the odds of picking a bad person are slim to none but if they pick you then the odds of them being a bad person are significantly higher."
Let them pick a mother stranger to further reduce the risks.
Perhaps it's just a matter of intelligence. The first game was won by the smart players. In the second game the smart ones saw the cheating opportunity and took it (perhaps even correctly deducig that that was the point of the experiment).
The stupid players saw no opportunity and no point.
So the experiment is interesting but the conclusions could be all wrong,..
Just add a few hyped tech subjects together in one subject line and you're sure to get your clicks!
Why not add 'self driving' as well. 3D printed self driving cars that you order and find their way to your doorstep without human intervention! Profit!
In reality, as every 3D printer owner knows, 3D printers are just great for prototyping one offs. As soon as you want volumes you turn to different modes of production.
In my experience wifi is a bit too unreliable to run your IoT applications on. Wifi links can be unreliable and anyone could DDOS your IoT application from a (relatively) safe distance and it's a real bummer if you can't enter your house when you need to because the rfid reader/finger print scanner can't contact your door latch. Therefore (been there done that) I prefer a good wired ethernet solution. Personally I use the openpicus flyport ethernet for such applications. Small, cheap and rock solid. But I'd prefer a compact wired Arduino so I can run my state machine library on it.
I guess competition is good, but the Arduino trademark stuff is a bit annoying.
Note that Liz Upton, the addressee, used the phrase malware herself. That's where the sensationalism started. Just blindly converting it into a Slashdot headline, that's the bad reporting part.
Problem with these commercial products is that they want to prove their usefulness be regularly raising alarms. And, they miss essential features like IP based whitelisting. Portscans and probes are to standard to be bothered about, just block and forget.
Use a decent open source product like pfsense instead. I've had an appliance with pfsense for years and I forget it's even there.
Not just almost an A.I. Driving in interaction with human drivers requires nothing less than an A.I. Problem is I haven't seen anything remotely resembling an A.I. outside Hollywood.
Of course if we have an A.I. we must program it to obey Asimov's three laws of robotics.
I would never hire a programmer that would pride himself on the complexity of his software. That's probably the reason the poor slob had to turn to malware to make a buck.
"If any 'claim of responsibility' emerged hours or days after a terrorist attack it would be treated with the utmost suspicion. Even if transmitted directly to them, news networks would notify the authorities of course, but they might not even report it publicly. Unless a phone call or fax was received at the moment of breaking news, some times even minutes before, the information was deemed to be zero-credible or less than zero, more likely than not the work of a crank. And news sources were generally averse to being cranked."
Some times yes, some scepticism is in order. In the case of the downed Russian plane, I'd even agree. But in this case, no. If you can't tell the difference too bad for you. It's obvious the IS claim is genuine, at very least it's a similar islamic group. Who do you want to blame? The Russians?
why are the British and Americans so certain of evidence of a bomb declaring they detected a heat flash and cancelling flights and so forth?
If the heat flash had been a bomb they should've seen another one when the plane crashed into the ground and the fuel ignited. So seeing one heat flash would actually suggest to me it wasn't a bomb.
Cancelling flights is exactly what you expect to happen in the aftermath of MH17. The authorities will be overly careful.
Same happened after the failed attack on the Thalys high speed train. The next time somebody hid in a toilet everyone immediately assumed it was another terrorist. This is the way of public servants.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's look at the positive side for a change...
Only yesterday I got this compliment from a fellow developer on the other side of the world:
I'm still glowing and more motivated than ever ;-)
(Give a deserved compliment now and then and keep open source going)
Well, it's a big thing here (in Holland). You host your stuff /in the cloud/ or /on premises/. Even American consultants of cloud companies talk about /on premise/ here.
On the same subject:
http://www.brianmadden.com/blo...
And,yes, on-site would be a better expression, but it doesn't sound quite as puffed up. I also hear 'on prem'. Well, short is better than wrong I guess.
How about the very widespread habit of saying 'on premise' when people actually mean 'on premises'? I'm not a native speaker, but when pointing out that mistake to colleagues (yeah, I'm a jerk) I actually found it's widespread among native speakers too.
WTF?
I hope you will. Sorry for getting irritated...
As a thank you for 'helping making Slashdot great' I'm allowed to disable ads. Well, I've never seen as many ads. Sure, they're all labeld 'top deals' and 'sponsored content' but they're ads cleverly designed to avoid my ad blocker.
I suggest you remove the disable ads checkbox because it's useless crap. I wonder when you'll start serving malware to make a little extra money.
"Islamists are responsible for about 5% of terror attacks in the US and 2% in Europe."
I'd love to see the definition of terror attack that was used here. Does it include sticking your head through an open window and shouting: boo??
The Pine64 is nice as well.
But standardizing on one or two model also has its perks. Cheap cases and other peripherals, easy to find software, an abundance of tutorials.
Its starting to sound a bit like the history of the IBM PC.
That precedent's already been set ages ago hasn't it? How is searching your phone different from searching your house or vault or mail account or tapping your phone or internet connection?
Sure, it would be a precedent. But the courts can already order a house search or access to your gmail account (heck, even mine and I'm not even an American) or the key to the iCloud servers. That's generally accepted.
It would be much more interesting to see if they could stop Apple from creating a device that even they themselves couldn't crack. The 20 times and you're out check could be done inside the hardware chip.
As far as Apple is concerned I'm sure they're milking it for all the publicity value that's in it.
"not force Apple to create a tool to allow the FBI subvert everybody else's security at-will."
If I understand correctly they want Apple to use their signing key to 'update' the phone's software with a version that doesn't delete the encryption key after 20 attempts.
How does that make other iphones less secure?
Obviously the universe shouldn't exist in the first place. If it does, what does it prove? That there is a god. But wait, a god shouldn't exist either.
Wasn't there some guy named Goedel who theorized something about systems being unable to prove their own consistency?
I see your point.
However, there's been a big scandal in my country about a pedophile who worked in a childcare center. It's rare for a man to work in childcare. This man (he was also gay) did, and the parents were all patting themselves on the back about how tolerant and grown up they were. They even let him babysit there children. Turns out he was a pedophile who specialized in toddlers (who couldn't speak up for themselves).
I believe that women are not entirely safe either, but the kind of abuse they get into is typically less predatory than what you see in these guys. Personally I would be very hesitant to let a man or boy babysit my children.
The advice - sexist as it may be - is sound. The well being of my loved ones comes first, any desire not to be racist of sexist takes a back seat to that. And I'm not even ashamed of that ;-)
"The one safety tip I try to teach my kids is that if they get lost to immediately walk up to the first stranger they see and ask for help. Don't wait for a stranger to come to you. If you pick the stranger then the odds of picking a bad person are slim to none but if they pick you then the odds of them being a bad person are significantly higher."
Let them pick a mother stranger to further reduce the risks.
Perhaps it's just a matter of intelligence. The first game was won by the smart players. In the second game the smart ones saw the cheating opportunity and took it (perhaps even correctly deducig that that was the point of the experiment).
The stupid players saw no opportunity and no point.
So the experiment is interesting but the conclusions could be all wrong,..
Is this one of those "that's funny" events that lead to world shattering discoveries?
Or just a bug...?
Just add a few hyped tech subjects together in one subject line and you're sure to get your clicks!
Why not add 'self driving' as well. 3D printed self driving cars that you order and find their way to your doorstep without human intervention! Profit!
In reality, as every 3D printer owner knows, 3D printers are just great for prototyping one offs. As soon as you want volumes you turn to different modes of production.
In my experience wifi is a bit too unreliable to run your IoT applications on. Wifi links can be unreliable and anyone could DDOS your IoT application from a (relatively) safe distance and it's a real bummer if you can't enter your house when you need to because the rfid reader/finger print scanner can't contact your door latch. Therefore (been there done that) I prefer a good wired ethernet solution. Personally I use the openpicus flyport ethernet for such applications. Small, cheap and rock solid. But I'd prefer a compact wired Arduino so I can run my state machine library on it.
I guess competition is good, but the Arduino trademark stuff is a bit annoying.
Note that Liz Upton, the addressee, used the phrase malware herself. That's where the sensationalism started. Just blindly converting it into a Slashdot headline, that's the bad reporting part.
Whatever happened to common sense...?
Share the wealth, that's my motto ;-)
Anyway, Lim asked me to say he prefers the Sophos stuff. He's also really fond of the McAfee stuff!
Problem with these commercial products is that they want to prove their usefulness be regularly raising alarms. And, they miss essential features like IP based whitelisting. Portscans and probes are to standard to be bothered about, just block and forget.
Use a decent open source product like pfsense instead. I've had an appliance with pfsense for years and I forget it's even there.
https://www.applianceshop.eu/s...
(no commercial interest, just a satisfied customer)
Not just almost an A.I. Driving in interaction with human drivers requires nothing less than an A.I. Problem is I haven't seen anything remotely resembling an A.I. outside Hollywood.
Of course if we have an A.I. we must program it to obey Asimov's three laws of robotics.
This article describes another related conundrum:
https://medium.com/@tanayj/sel...
Exactly. And this is another gem:
'much more complex than average malware'
I would never hire a programmer that would pride himself on the complexity of his software. That's probably the reason the poor slob had to turn to malware to make a buck.
"If any 'claim of responsibility' emerged hours or days after a terrorist attack it would be treated with the utmost suspicion. Even if transmitted directly to them, news networks would notify the authorities of course, but they might not even report it publicly. Unless a phone call or fax was received at the moment of breaking news, some times even minutes before, the information was deemed to be zero-credible or less than zero, more likely than not the work of a crank. And news sources were generally averse to being cranked."
Some times yes, some scepticism is in order. In the case of the downed Russian plane, I'd even agree. But in this case, no. If you can't tell the difference too bad for you. It's obvious the IS claim is genuine, at very least it's a similar islamic group. Who do you want to blame? The Russians?
Mod this guy up, this is one of the most maddening aspects of western society. Why must this fascist religion be defended so fanatically by the left?
There are 13 countries in which atheism is punishable by death. They are all muslim states!
Islam is religious fascism.
If the heat flash had been a bomb they should've seen another one when the plane crashed into the ground and the fuel ignited. So seeing one heat flash would actually suggest to me it wasn't a bomb.
Cancelling flights is exactly what you expect to happen in the aftermath of MH17. The authorities will be overly careful.
Same happened after the failed attack on the Thalys high speed train. The next time somebody hid in a toilet everyone immediately assumed it was another terrorist. This is the way of public servants.