This is typical of Microsoft. They introduce "features" which sound really cool, but in actual practice are ill-advised. Then they introduce band-aid solutions that are supposed to make up for these deficiencies, but really don't do anything except get in the way of normal usage, and insult the intelligence of users. The issue with Office macros has been around for about 20 years, and they have been attempting to fix the security holes ever since, to no effect. This is why Windows is such a sieve when it comes to security, because they've designed Windows with the same philosophy as all of their other products, including Office.
The government requires auto manufacturers to have safety features that protect people in the event of a collision. A collision isn't considered "normal use", but they are required to safeguard against injury in the event of a collision. The spate of recalls due to defective airbags from Takata can be an example of a product feature being fixed that is supposed to deploy outside of normal use. Whether or not the collision is malicious is besides the point.
I have an idea! Let's have a contest to see how many ways one can say "No". Maybe it's the tone? Or the Inflection? Maybe if it's set to the right music?
The one who finds the method of saying "no" that finally convinces world governments that putting in backdoors, or a way to use a "golden key", or whatever euphemism they want that gives them a way into our devices and networks without our permission is a spectacularly bad idea and not going to happen, wins a prize. It can be sponsored by device makers, security companies, operating system developers, etc.
Then why the heck are they calling it version "1.6"?! Somebody doesn't understand the concept of "alpha", or "beta". Then again, Microsoft has been muddling those definitions for decades now, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
1. Different sites have different stupid arbitrary restrictions, so you're forced to a "lowest common denominator" (e.g. probably you don't use any punctuation symbols in your manually generated passwords, and they aren't very long)
Excuse my french, but this shit drives me crazy! Having said that, any scheme you choose you use should be adaptable. For example, for sites that have a size limit on passwords, I use a smaller portion of the fixed part of the password, accompanied by the variable part. If they don't allow symbols, I just drop the symbols from the fixed part. Then again, if a site has these types of arbitrary restrictions, I generally only use them if they aren't terribly important. In other words, if someone were to hack my account on said web site, if it wouldn't cause me serious problems in that event, I usually go ahead anyway. Web sites for mobile phones are notorious for imposing these types of restrictions. Since I don't want someone hacking my mobile phone service, I generally don't use them; I just use their phone tree or call customer service. (It's amazing what phone companies don't know about building secure web sites).
Also, I have a theory that web sites that have these types of restrictions on their passwords are storing passwords in clear text. I'm guessing the symbols might interfere with their username/password storage scheme, and allowing them could cause their user database to become corrupted. I have no evidence to back this up, but it's the only thing I can think of that would explain why anybody would have restrictions on what characters you can use. If they were hashing passwords, it shouldn't make a difference. Same goes for those with size limits on their passwords. You should be able to copy and paste "War And Peace" as your password and it shouldn't matter; sites that use hashes should be able to handle that (system memory and bandwidth restrictions notwithstanding).
2. If a site requires you to reset/change your password for some reason, then you are stuck; you have to remember that site's password as an exception to your system.
Not unless your password scheme is adaptable. If you have a fixed portion and a variable portion of your standard password, all you do is change the variable portion. I've run into this myself, and it still works.
3. If someone happened to discover 2 of your passwords to different sites, then your scheme would be easily busted.
That's where length combined with entropy comes in. Longer passwords are harder to guess. Yes, they can be a pain in the ass, and I can't tell you how many times I have to retype my passwords. But that's a small price to pay for ensuring your online presences are secure. Also, avoid using sites that require shorter passwords and/or have restrictions on the characters you can use. But, you do have a point.
I have been doing something similar for the last 15 years or so, and it works well for me. To my knowledge, none of my accounts have been hacked in that time. The other key, however, is to use LONG passwords. If the entropy in your password is sufficient, you shouldn't have any trouble. The key with dealing with long passwords? Muscle memory!
Agreed. But it's a useful reminder that the DMCA is still out there, and that it's one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. Maybe someday we'll get sick and tired of tripping over this damn thing and get it repealed.
I was talking to an older lady one day a few years ago, and she told me that her grandchildren were telling her that Facebook was going to replace e-mail.
The notion that phone numbers are going away any time soon is just as idiotic!
Interestingly enough, it's not uncommon for corporations to lease their computers today. Basically everyone gets a new computer every couple of years. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you get the latest Operating System. For a while my largest client gave me a company laptop in order to log into their network. I received a number of computers over the years, and even though a computer was "certified" for the latest version of Windows, it actually contained the previous version. Corporations are very anal-retentive about the version of Operating System their personnel use.
This is the single worst thing Microsoft has ever done in my book.
Yeah, although the release of Windows Me would be a close second, if not the worst. That piece of crap was pretty bad! Followed closely by Windows 8. The bottom line is they release these things because they can. Some people have no choice but to run Windows. There are a fair number of software packages that won't run on anything else. Factor in the large number of corporate customers who "live the Windows lifestyle" (Windows Server, etc.), and that means Microsoft can do pretty much whatever they want. And remember, while the computer belongs to you, the Windows Operating System belongs to Microsoft, and use of their IP means you agree to whatever they want to do.
See, I had always heard that IBM was a great place to work, and that they often went out of their way to make their employees happy. That's why it puzzles me that someone was trying to unionize IBM. Sure, it would have made a big splash for the pro-union movement if they had managed to unionize the largest tech company in the world, but it sounds like there was no real motivation by the rank-and-file to unionize at IBM. Sounds like the union's motives may not have been pure.
Unions are not just about wage growth. They're also about protecting employees from abuse. Let's face it, over the last 20 years or so, abuse of tech workers has been rampant. Companies expect their tech workers to put in 50 to 60 hours a week with no overtime or comp time. Many tech companies offer their employees stock options, which are not as handsome as they used to be since the tax rules surrounding them changed a number of years ago. So tech companies often feed their employees the line "Well, the more you work and the harder you work, the more valuable your stock options will be in the long run". That rarely turns out to be the case; not every tech company turns out to be an Apple, or a Microsoft, or a Netscape, or a Facebook.
Yes, I'll agree that I don't care for other aspects of unions either, like seniority over merit, and some unions can be very corrupt as well. But if tech companies aren't careful, they may have no choice but to deal with unions in the future. Running tech employees into the ground is not a sound or sustainable strategy for remaining competitive in the world. Unions could at least help ensure that practice stops.
When I was in Jr High School in the mid-80s, we had two teachers. The first really knew his stuff. He knew the subject matter front and back, and knew how to explain it to a bunch of 7th- and 8th- graders. Then he retired and they transferred another teacher to pick up the computer curriculum. Yes, she was an English teacher, but she also had a solid grounding in the computers we were using, and had a firm grip on the subject matter. Under both teachers, the subject matter ranged from business applications to basic programming subjects.
In high school, it was a completely different story. Most of the computer courses were under the umbrella of the Business Department, where they taught mostly business applications (word processing, databases, etc.). They offered no classes in programming at all. The teacher who taught these courses was the head of the Business Department, and she was quite competent, but didn't know how to read code. Then, quite unexpectedly, she was promoted to Vice Principle mid-semester (I'll spare you the gory details as to why), and they got a substitute to teach her courses. This new teachers qualifications? She knew how to teach typing and shorthand. THAT'S IT! She didn't even know how to use the word processors they were teaching in these courses! I happened to be in one of these courses, taught by this substitute, the second semester after all this went down. I, along with a friend of mine, wound up doing most of the teaching in the course, especially during the lab portions of the class. The teacher really did try to learn the subject matter, but she just wasn't getting it. She was in WAY over her head, and she knew it!
The next year was better, but still a challenge. They got a different teacher (I believe his background was Social Studies). He had a much better time grasping and understanding the subject matter. I took the first semester that year as a teacher's aid with him, and he wasn't quite the nightmare that the previous teacher had been. But he still had to learn things, because there were some holes in his knowledge of the subject.
This is one of my pet peeves; school districts who dare to teach computer classes to students, but don't have competent teachers to teach the subject. The key in getting kids interested in the subject is to have teachers who are competent and confident in the subject matter themselves. If the teacher can impart how interesting the subject can be, there is the potential to spark major interest in the subject down the road. If the teacher is stumbling and stammering while trying to impart important concepts, it will turn kids off of the subject because, after all, if the teacher doesn't get it, how on Earth are they ever expected to understand it? It may also reinforce the perception by some who may take computer classes that computers are hard, and scare them away.
If it's a national priority that kids be taught computer classes, they need to do it right! If that means they have to pay a little more to get the proper teachers to teach the subject matter, then that's what they need to do. Schools have been underfunded for decades anyway, and this is a good excuse to pay teachers (not just computer teachers, but ALL teachers) what they're worth. But, oh no, we can't do that!
So here's what they're really saying: We know it's going to be difficult to hire teachers who know the subject matter because those who know the subject matter can get much higher-paying jobs in the private sector. So, if all you can find are English and Social Studies teachers to teach the courses, it's okay and we won't jump down your throats, even though chances are those teachers will be horribly unprepared to teach the subject matter.
I want the exact same thing, but I require more CPU power so its not going to work for me for a few more years, but I do dev work on her MBA on occasion and its really not that bad for most things if you can keep your working set small enough.
Realistically speaking, the power of a CPU is relative to the current generation of the OS and Apps that it runs. Server CPUs are generally the most powerful, then desktop CPUs less so, then Notebook CPUs lesser still, then Phone CPUs the least powerful. CPUs get more powerful in absolute terms with each new generation. But then developers build more sophisticated OS and App features which tend to take up all of those additional CPU cycles. So, in relative terms, I don't see how a phone will have "more CPU power" in a few years.
Who's buying these? The same crowd that thinks LPs offer a superior listening experience to digital? Sigh...
Umm...well, they do. Yes, you do tend to get some pops and clicks on vinyl, even with immaculate records. But you also hear things on vinyl that gets left out on digital media because the sampling rate isn't high enough. Also, most prominently used digital audio formats are lossy, which means some of the data gets lost as part of the compression process. This further compromises the listening experience with digital media. Then again, unless you have high end speakers, most people don't notice the missing parts of the music. But there is no better listening experience than vinyl with a good turntable and high-end speakers.
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. If your firewall is halfway decent (and it sounds like it is), you shouldn't have anything to worry about as far as the security of your network. Unless, of course, you do something really dumb like open a port you shouldn't and have it refer to a port on a machine on your net (I'm presuming you're using NAT).
Also, since it's highly likely you're network link is DHCP, your IP address might change periodically when your router goes to renew the DHCP lease. If your IP address hasn't changed in a while, you might try shutting your router down for a while (like an hour), turn it back on and see if it gives you a new IP address. That might stop them from scanning your network (unless they're going after an entire range if IP addresses on the RoadRunner network).
I initially reported it to my own ISP's (RoadRunner's) abuse desk, on the assumption that if they're scanning me then they're probably scanning a bunch of my neighbors as well, and any responsible ISP would probably want to block this BS, but all I ever got back was an automated acknowledgment and zero action.
They're too busy enforcing their own arbitrary network rules on their subscribers to worry about things like port scanners coming into their network. Also, it's RoadRunner (Time Warner Cable if I'm not mistaken), and they have among the worst customer service anyway. Unless the attack is coming from someone else on RoadRunner, you're wasting your time reporting the incident to them. Besides, there's really not much they can do anyway if the attack is coming from outside their network. That's why everyone is supposed to have their own firewall.;-)
I was trying to download LibreOffice and somehow wound up with MacKeeper. The installation process didn't even tell me what it was. Once I realized it was a scam (which didn't take very long), it was a bitch to get rid of! It has processes that would respawn after they were killed. That's not a good sign, especially for something that isn't essential to system functionality. And it kept starting up on boot-up even if you moved it to the trash. You had to empty the trash and remove some files in Library in order to totally get rid of it.
I'm almost thinking this is a planted story (not on/. part) so they look legit and people keep MacKeeper on their systems. I agree with others, 13 million sounds very high. They have some brass balls!
They need to stop charging so damn much! I recently went shopping for Cable service to see what things cost nowadays. The prices are exorbitant and strange!
For example, if I get a "Limited Basic" package, which basically includes just my local TV channels and a smattering of basic cable channels (most of which are home shopping channels), it's like $16/mo. I get one receiver for free, and I can hook up the other two TVs in my house for $2.65/mo each. So after all is said and done, I can get basic cable service for my entire home for about $22/mo. The catch is that I cannot get HD for my HDTV in my living room.
In order to get HDTV at all, I have to go up to their "Digital Starter" package for $50/mo. But only one of the digital SDTV converter boxes (the same one as in the "Limited Basic" package) is included with that package. If I want to get HDTV at all, I have to upgrade that "included" box to an "HDTV" box for $10/mo. But what's really weird is that the boxes for the other two TVs, which are SDTVs, are now suddenly $9.95/mo, instead of the $2.65/mo for the other package. So by the time I'm done outfitting my entire home, the equipment charges are 60% of the cost of the package. That's absurd!
So the bottom line is services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are simply making it easier for people to get away from the obvious price gouging that's occurring with Cable and (to a lesser extent) Satellite services. If you're fortunate enough to live in an area where HDTV broadcast signals are good in your area, all you have to do is put up an HDTV antenna and hook it up to your TV. And if not, Hulu (in particular) carries many of the more popular network TV shows anyway. Voila! You are now free of the outrageous pricing of Cable and Satellite companies.
This is, in part, why I refuse to subscribe to Cable Internet service. They are trying too hard to prevent one arm of their business from stepping on another arm of their business. This NEVER works! When you enter a market segment, you have to commit to it, and Comcast and the like don't want to do that.
Sort of related to the above, but the other overriding reason why I refuse to subscribe to Cable Internet is their policies are so arbitrary. I run a business from my home, and I require high-speed Internet in order to do my work. If I was constantly tripping over Comcast's rules and requirements in the conducting of my business (bandwidth rules, port usage, etc.), I would never get anything done. I am fortunate to have a really good ISP that is neither a cable company nor an RBOC. But not everyone has that kind of flexibility, so they have to deal with Cable companies playing silly games with their Internet access.
Having been in the industry for over 20 years, and also having been in QA for 8 of those years, my experience says that when a company decides to eliminate their QA department, the company is circling the drain. When a company is looking to cut costs and there is very little to no fat to trim, the first target is often QA.
One company I worked for, a company of 35 people, cut 5 of those positions. Two of them were QA headcount, including the Director of QA. The QA department then reported to a then recently-hired Vice President of Engineering, which is a spectacularly bad idea! The company was acquired a little over a year after that layoff, and the new company eventually let go of all of those people a few months after the acquisition.
Another company I worked for laid off 70% of their workforce, which included the entire QA department. There were obvious bugs and mistakes on their web sites and web-delivered services for over a year after that layoff. They were eventually bought by another company about 2 years later.
So, it is my considered opinion that Yahoo is in serious trouble. I predict they will either be acquired or go bust within the next year.
There also used to be HSC Electronics for surplus, and they're gone from the area as well.
The Santa Clara store is still open. The store in Rohnert Park closed a few years ago, which was a shame. This place has saved my neck on more than one occasion.
Another venerable Silicon Valley electronics store was Quement Electronics. They used to be on Bascom Ave in San Jose, but Google searches now place it on Walsh Ave. in Santa Clara. Clicking to their web site takes you to an outfit called Master Electronics. So one can only assume Quement was bought by these people. I have no idea if this place is a walk-in store like the old Quement used to be. If not, that is also a shame.
Slashdot Mirror
This is typical of Microsoft. They introduce "features" which sound really cool, but in actual practice are ill-advised. Then they introduce band-aid solutions that are supposed to make up for these deficiencies, but really don't do anything except get in the way of normal usage, and insult the intelligence of users. The issue with Office macros has been around for about 20 years, and they have been attempting to fix the security holes ever since, to no effect. This is why Windows is such a sieve when it comes to security, because they've designed Windows with the same philosophy as all of their other products, including Office.
The government requires auto manufacturers to have safety features that protect people in the event of a collision. A collision isn't considered "normal use", but they are required to safeguard against injury in the event of a collision. The spate of recalls due to defective airbags from Takata can be an example of a product feature being fixed that is supposed to deploy outside of normal use. Whether or not the collision is malicious is besides the point.
I have an idea! Let's have a contest to see how many ways one can say "No". Maybe it's the tone? Or the Inflection? Maybe if it's set to the right music?
The one who finds the method of saying "no" that finally convinces world governments that putting in backdoors, or a way to use a "golden key", or whatever euphemism they want that gives them a way into our devices and networks without our permission is a spectacularly bad idea and not going to happen, wins a prize. It can be sponsored by device makers, security companies, operating system developers, etc.
I've made it my business to never do what Microsoft recommends. That has served me well over the years.
Then why the heck are they calling it version "1.6"?! Somebody doesn't understand the concept of "alpha", or "beta". Then again, Microsoft has been muddling those definitions for decades now, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
1. Different sites have different stupid arbitrary restrictions, so you're forced to a "lowest common denominator" (e.g. probably you don't use any punctuation symbols in your manually generated passwords, and they aren't very long)
Excuse my french, but this shit drives me crazy! Having said that, any scheme you choose you use should be adaptable. For example, for sites that have a size limit on passwords, I use a smaller portion of the fixed part of the password, accompanied by the variable part. If they don't allow symbols, I just drop the symbols from the fixed part. Then again, if a site has these types of arbitrary restrictions, I generally only use them if they aren't terribly important. In other words, if someone were to hack my account on said web site, if it wouldn't cause me serious problems in that event, I usually go ahead anyway. Web sites for mobile phones are notorious for imposing these types of restrictions. Since I don't want someone hacking my mobile phone service, I generally don't use them; I just use their phone tree or call customer service. (It's amazing what phone companies don't know about building secure web sites).
Also, I have a theory that web sites that have these types of restrictions on their passwords are storing passwords in clear text. I'm guessing the symbols might interfere with their username/password storage scheme, and allowing them could cause their user database to become corrupted. I have no evidence to back this up, but it's the only thing I can think of that would explain why anybody would have restrictions on what characters you can use. If they were hashing passwords, it shouldn't make a difference. Same goes for those with size limits on their passwords. You should be able to copy and paste "War And Peace" as your password and it shouldn't matter; sites that use hashes should be able to handle that (system memory and bandwidth restrictions notwithstanding).
2. If a site requires you to reset/change your password for some reason, then you are stuck; you have to remember that site's password as an exception to your system.
Not unless your password scheme is adaptable. If you have a fixed portion and a variable portion of your standard password, all you do is change the variable portion. I've run into this myself, and it still works.
3. If someone happened to discover 2 of your passwords to different sites, then your scheme would be easily busted.
That's where length combined with entropy comes in. Longer passwords are harder to guess. Yes, they can be a pain in the ass, and I can't tell you how many times I have to retype my passwords. But that's a small price to pay for ensuring your online presences are secure. Also, avoid using sites that require shorter passwords and/or have restrictions on the characters you can use. But, you do have a point.
I have been doing something similar for the last 15 years or so, and it works well for me. To my knowledge, none of my accounts have been hacked in that time. The other key, however, is to use LONG passwords. If the entropy in your password is sufficient, you shouldn't have any trouble. The key with dealing with long passwords? Muscle memory!
Says the man who has his merchandise made in China.
Agreed. But it's a useful reminder that the DMCA is still out there, and that it's one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. Maybe someday we'll get sick and tired of tripping over this damn thing and get it repealed.
I was talking to an older lady one day a few years ago, and she told me that her grandchildren were telling her that Facebook was going to replace e-mail.
The notion that phone numbers are going away any time soon is just as idiotic!
Interestingly enough, it's not uncommon for corporations to lease their computers today. Basically everyone gets a new computer every couple of years. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you get the latest Operating System. For a while my largest client gave me a company laptop in order to log into their network. I received a number of computers over the years, and even though a computer was "certified" for the latest version of Windows, it actually contained the previous version. Corporations are very anal-retentive about the version of Operating System their personnel use.
This is the single worst thing Microsoft has ever done in my book.
Yeah, although the release of Windows Me would be a close second, if not the worst. That piece of crap was pretty bad! Followed closely by Windows 8. The bottom line is they release these things because they can. Some people have no choice but to run Windows. There are a fair number of software packages that won't run on anything else. Factor in the large number of corporate customers who "live the Windows lifestyle" (Windows Server, etc.), and that means Microsoft can do pretty much whatever they want. And remember, while the computer belongs to you, the Windows Operating System belongs to Microsoft, and use of their IP means you agree to whatever they want to do.
See, I had always heard that IBM was a great place to work, and that they often went out of their way to make their employees happy. That's why it puzzles me that someone was trying to unionize IBM. Sure, it would have made a big splash for the pro-union movement if they had managed to unionize the largest tech company in the world, but it sounds like there was no real motivation by the rank-and-file to unionize at IBM. Sounds like the union's motives may not have been pure.
Unions are not just about wage growth. They're also about protecting employees from abuse. Let's face it, over the last 20 years or so, abuse of tech workers has been rampant. Companies expect their tech workers to put in 50 to 60 hours a week with no overtime or comp time. Many tech companies offer their employees stock options, which are not as handsome as they used to be since the tax rules surrounding them changed a number of years ago. So tech companies often feed their employees the line "Well, the more you work and the harder you work, the more valuable your stock options will be in the long run". That rarely turns out to be the case; not every tech company turns out to be an Apple, or a Microsoft, or a Netscape, or a Facebook.
Yes, I'll agree that I don't care for other aspects of unions either, like seniority over merit, and some unions can be very corrupt as well. But if tech companies aren't careful, they may have no choice but to deal with unions in the future. Running tech employees into the ground is not a sound or sustainable strategy for remaining competitive in the world. Unions could at least help ensure that practice stops.
Ah...
When I was in Jr High School in the mid-80s, we had two teachers. The first really knew his stuff. He knew the subject matter front and back, and knew how to explain it to a bunch of 7th- and 8th- graders. Then he retired and they transferred another teacher to pick up the computer curriculum. Yes, she was an English teacher, but she also had a solid grounding in the computers we were using, and had a firm grip on the subject matter. Under both teachers, the subject matter ranged from business applications to basic programming subjects.
In high school, it was a completely different story. Most of the computer courses were under the umbrella of the Business Department, where they taught mostly business applications (word processing, databases, etc.). They offered no classes in programming at all. The teacher who taught these courses was the head of the Business Department, and she was quite competent, but didn't know how to read code. Then, quite unexpectedly, she was promoted to Vice Principle mid-semester (I'll spare you the gory details as to why), and they got a substitute to teach her courses. This new teachers qualifications? She knew how to teach typing and shorthand. THAT'S IT! She didn't even know how to use the word processors they were teaching in these courses! I happened to be in one of these courses, taught by this substitute, the second semester after all this went down. I, along with a friend of mine, wound up doing most of the teaching in the course, especially during the lab portions of the class. The teacher really did try to learn the subject matter, but she just wasn't getting it. She was in WAY over her head, and she knew it!
The next year was better, but still a challenge. They got a different teacher (I believe his background was Social Studies). He had a much better time grasping and understanding the subject matter. I took the first semester that year as a teacher's aid with him, and he wasn't quite the nightmare that the previous teacher had been. But he still had to learn things, because there were some holes in his knowledge of the subject.
This is one of my pet peeves; school districts who dare to teach computer classes to students, but don't have competent teachers to teach the subject. The key in getting kids interested in the subject is to have teachers who are competent and confident in the subject matter themselves. If the teacher can impart how interesting the subject can be, there is the potential to spark major interest in the subject down the road. If the teacher is stumbling and stammering while trying to impart important concepts, it will turn kids off of the subject because, after all, if the teacher doesn't get it, how on Earth are they ever expected to understand it? It may also reinforce the perception by some who may take computer classes that computers are hard, and scare them away.
If it's a national priority that kids be taught computer classes, they need to do it right! If that means they have to pay a little more to get the proper teachers to teach the subject matter, then that's what they need to do. Schools have been underfunded for decades anyway, and this is a good excuse to pay teachers (not just computer teachers, but ALL teachers) what they're worth. But, oh no, we can't do that!
So here's what they're really saying: We know it's going to be difficult to hire teachers who know the subject matter because those who know the subject matter can get much higher-paying jobs in the private sector. So, if all you can find are English and Social Studies teachers to teach the courses, it's okay and we won't jump down your throats, even though chances are those teachers will be horribly unprepared to teach the subject matter.
Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish!
I want the exact same thing, but I require more CPU power so its not going to work for me for a few more years, but I do dev work on her MBA on occasion and its really not that bad for most things if you can keep your working set small enough.
Realistically speaking, the power of a CPU is relative to the current generation of the OS and Apps that it runs. Server CPUs are generally the most powerful, then desktop CPUs less so, then Notebook CPUs lesser still, then Phone CPUs the least powerful. CPUs get more powerful in absolute terms with each new generation. But then developers build more sophisticated OS and App features which tend to take up all of those additional CPU cycles. So, in relative terms, I don't see how a phone will have "more CPU power" in a few years.
Who's buying these? The same crowd that thinks LPs offer a superior listening experience to digital? Sigh...
Umm...well, they do. Yes, you do tend to get some pops and clicks on vinyl, even with immaculate records. But you also hear things on vinyl that gets left out on digital media because the sampling rate isn't high enough. Also, most prominently used digital audio formats are lossy, which means some of the data gets lost as part of the compression process. This further compromises the listening experience with digital media. Then again, unless you have high end speakers, most people don't notice the missing parts of the music. But there is no better listening experience than vinyl with a good turntable and high-end speakers.
TSA is already expanding to ... highways.
Oh really? How is that going to work exactly?
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. If your firewall is halfway decent (and it sounds like it is), you shouldn't have anything to worry about as far as the security of your network. Unless, of course, you do something really dumb like open a port you shouldn't and have it refer to a port on a machine on your net (I'm presuming you're using NAT).
Also, since it's highly likely you're network link is DHCP, your IP address might change periodically when your router goes to renew the DHCP lease. If your IP address hasn't changed in a while, you might try shutting your router down for a while (like an hour), turn it back on and see if it gives you a new IP address. That might stop them from scanning your network (unless they're going after an entire range if IP addresses on the RoadRunner network).
I initially reported it to my own ISP's (RoadRunner's) abuse desk, on the assumption that if they're scanning me then they're probably scanning a bunch of my neighbors as well, and any responsible ISP would probably want to block this BS, but all I ever got back was an automated acknowledgment and zero action.
They're too busy enforcing their own arbitrary network rules on their subscribers to worry about things like port scanners coming into their network. Also, it's RoadRunner (Time Warner Cable if I'm not mistaken), and they have among the worst customer service anyway. Unless the attack is coming from someone else on RoadRunner, you're wasting your time reporting the incident to them. Besides, there's really not much they can do anyway if the attack is coming from outside their network. That's why everyone is supposed to have their own firewall. ;-)
I was trying to download LibreOffice and somehow wound up with MacKeeper. The installation process didn't even tell me what it was. Once I realized it was a scam (which didn't take very long), it was a bitch to get rid of! It has processes that would respawn after they were killed. That's not a good sign, especially for something that isn't essential to system functionality. And it kept starting up on boot-up even if you moved it to the trash. You had to empty the trash and remove some files in Library in order to totally get rid of it.
I'm almost thinking this is a planted story (not on /. part) so they look legit and people keep MacKeeper on their systems. I agree with others, 13 million sounds very high. They have some brass balls!
They need to stop charging so damn much! I recently went shopping for Cable service to see what things cost nowadays. The prices are exorbitant and strange!
For example, if I get a "Limited Basic" package, which basically includes just my local TV channels and a smattering of basic cable channels (most of which are home shopping channels), it's like $16/mo. I get one receiver for free, and I can hook up the other two TVs in my house for $2.65/mo each. So after all is said and done, I can get basic cable service for my entire home for about $22/mo. The catch is that I cannot get HD for my HDTV in my living room.
In order to get HDTV at all, I have to go up to their "Digital Starter" package for $50/mo. But only one of the digital SDTV converter boxes (the same one as in the "Limited Basic" package) is included with that package. If I want to get HDTV at all, I have to upgrade that "included" box to an "HDTV" box for $10/mo. But what's really weird is that the boxes for the other two TVs, which are SDTVs, are now suddenly $9.95/mo, instead of the $2.65/mo for the other package. So by the time I'm done outfitting my entire home, the equipment charges are 60% of the cost of the package. That's absurd!
So the bottom line is services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are simply making it easier for people to get away from the obvious price gouging that's occurring with Cable and (to a lesser extent) Satellite services. If you're fortunate enough to live in an area where HDTV broadcast signals are good in your area, all you have to do is put up an HDTV antenna and hook it up to your TV. And if not, Hulu (in particular) carries many of the more popular network TV shows anyway. Voila! You are now free of the outrageous pricing of Cable and Satellite companies.
This is, in part, why I refuse to subscribe to Cable Internet service. They are trying too hard to prevent one arm of their business from stepping on another arm of their business. This NEVER works! When you enter a market segment, you have to commit to it, and Comcast and the like don't want to do that.
Sort of related to the above, but the other overriding reason why I refuse to subscribe to Cable Internet is their policies are so arbitrary. I run a business from my home, and I require high-speed Internet in order to do my work. If I was constantly tripping over Comcast's rules and requirements in the conducting of my business (bandwidth rules, port usage, etc.), I would never get anything done. I am fortunate to have a really good ISP that is neither a cable company nor an RBOC. But not everyone has that kind of flexibility, so they have to deal with Cable companies playing silly games with their Internet access.
Having been in the industry for over 20 years, and also having been in QA for 8 of those years, my experience says that when a company decides to eliminate their QA department, the company is circling the drain. When a company is looking to cut costs and there is very little to no fat to trim, the first target is often QA.
One company I worked for, a company of 35 people, cut 5 of those positions. Two of them were QA headcount, including the Director of QA. The QA department then reported to a then recently-hired Vice President of Engineering, which is a spectacularly bad idea! The company was acquired a little over a year after that layoff, and the new company eventually let go of all of those people a few months after the acquisition.
Another company I worked for laid off 70% of their workforce, which included the entire QA department. There were obvious bugs and mistakes on their web sites and web-delivered services for over a year after that layoff. They were eventually bought by another company about 2 years later.
So, it is my considered opinion that Yahoo is in serious trouble. I predict they will either be acquired or go bust within the next year.
There also used to be HSC Electronics for surplus, and they're gone from the area as well.
The Santa Clara store is still open. The store in Rohnert Park closed a few years ago, which was a shame. This place has saved my neck on more than one occasion.
Another venerable Silicon Valley electronics store was Quement Electronics. They used to be on Bascom Ave in San Jose, but Google searches now place it on Walsh Ave. in Santa Clara. Clicking to their web site takes you to an outfit called Master Electronics. So one can only assume Quement was bought by these people. I have no idea if this place is a walk-in store like the old Quement used to be. If not, that is also a shame.