I have. You're still wrong. They are arguing for not discussing sex in very specific contexts for specific reasons. It's fallacious to extend that to a general proscription on discussing sex.
Care to explain the specific context and the specific reason? From the sound of it, they are arguing against having sex-ed talks at conferences because somebody might not be aware that a sex-ed talk might include topics that make rape survivors uncomfortable. Is there something more specific -- your word -- that makes this specific conference the wrong place for a sex talk?
Why add the "Neo One" to the name? You just won a case for a very valuable name in the electronics industry, why go adding extra crap to to let people know that it isn't really an iPhone?
You've kinda got it backwards. They "added the Neo One" because they had already been selling this model of phone as simply the Neo One. Then in October 2012, for whatever reason, they added the iphone part and started talking about how they owned the trademark, etc.
The phone itself is pretty lackluster. Gingerbread, 700MHz single-core processor, altogether pedestrian specs.
>> It's surprising how few novels are set in the workplace
LOTS of novels are written about the workplace. The critical point is that they don't get published.
Here's how it works: Some guy (they're almost always guys) goes to university, gets a BA in English, then goes off and gets a dull office job because he needs money to pay off his student loans, just like everybody else. Time goes by, and about ten years in he starts to grow unsatisfied with his situation and he thinks to himself, "Whatever happened to that novel I always said I was going to write?" And he vows to write a novel.
But what should the novel be about? Well, you know what they say: "Write what you know." And what does he know? Well, pretty much since he got out of college, he's been working at a boring, soul-numbing office job. He hates his coworkers and thinks they're all idiots. The boss is the worst of all. Great stuff, he thinks! He has piles of material to work with. And so he sets out to write his book about a guy working in an office.
The problem is A.) Unbeknownst to him, he is not the first person to have this idea; B.) When you write a book where the main character is just some schlub in an office going around thinking he's superior to everybody else around him, that main character comes off like a dick; C.) It turns out that the silly little situations that get you through your dreary days at the office are not really that amusing to anyone else -- or witty, or original, or insightful, etc.; D.) It turns out that the office is not really a very fertile setting for fiction after all, and that the reason a lot of people who work office jobs bring books with them on the train in the morning is because they'd rather think about something else.
I am being dead serious about all of this. I've been told by literary agents that this type of book is probably the #2 submission received by fiction agents/editors from first-time authors, right after the thinly-veiled memoir of the author's college days disguised as a novel.
Like the latter book, the "novel about my suffering and toil at the office" is best seen as a practice run -- finish it if you must, but then immediately shelve it and start your second novel, which might be about something interesting.
The government is not one man, even in China. If it this did happen and was ever proven he would be forced out at the very least, if not prosecuted, even in China.
OK, now I think you're intentionally being thick.
Let's recap: You are the one suggesting that this was the work of one man, acting alone. I am the one telling you that this is virtually impossible, and an attack of this kind would never be done without official government sanction. So explain to me what your new argument is now, because you sure as hell sound like you're making my point for me.
I think you need to do some reading about China. My girlfriend is Chinese as it happens, so I have some interest in this subject.
I bow before the superior intellect, Khan.
It will be ignored until it can no longer be ignored (because incontrovertible proof is made public), at which point the powers that be will come down hard.
Yeah? And just when would that proof be made public. You mean the kind of "made public" like when the newspapers you attacked run stories about it and the entire world knows about it?
I am begging you... begging you, now. THINK. Use your brain.
So they made a USB 3.0 flash drive that has a decent amount of space on it, priced it at a multiple more than the competition, and that's it? It doesn't even come with Windows 8, which is the purpose of buying this product. Great story brought to you by/., now advertising products that many will never, ever need (or want)!
The part they seem to have glossed over is that this is a secure USB key. Most of the storage is AES encrypted, with just a tiny unencrypted boot partition to handle the encryption.
Mind you, I saw this press release on Friday and it didn't sound particularly interesting to me, either.
Here's something interesting, though. Imation, which has been buying up various companies, including IronKey -- because apparently floppy disks aren't selling as well as they once did -- has managed to shed 88.5% of its share price since 2006.
A politician acting for themselves is not the same as the state deciding to sanction something. When a US politician goes to jail that doesn't mean that the government committed a crime or endorsed his behaviour.
OK, my guess was right. You really don't understand how things work in China. My recommendation is that you go to the library, grab back issues of some reputable news source (The Economist might be a good place to start) and read up on everything you can find about the last Chinese national election. Along the way you'll learn a lot about how free Chinese politicians are to act independently. (TL;DR - China ain't the US.)
Also, just think about what you're suggesting. This isn't some politician giving an order to have some hapless old man thrown in prison. That kind of thing happens all the time in China, and nobody ever hears about it. What you're saying, though, is that some lone politician, acting completely independently and on his own initiative, hired hackers to launch an attack on the two largest, most respected newspapers in the United States. Not even the largest companies -- the largest newspapers. Exactly how was this supposed rogue, lone wolf politician planning to cover up what he did?
This brand of cynicism is dull, and it creates its own form of self-fulfilling ignorance.
If nothing you see in the media is true and every journalist is a puppet of either advertisers or the government, then where do you get your news from, exactly?
There is only one possible answer, and that is: You make it up. You hear what people tell you, decide you're going to believe the opposite, and then you go around railing on the news for not saying what you believe.
You are assuming it was the Chinese government. So far I have not seen a shred of evidence to support that. There is some circumstantial evidence that the attacks may have originated from China, possibly.
It would actually make a lot more sense if it were hackers hired by the politician who has been the subject of these embarrassing stories.
OK, did I just read your whole comment to learn that you think there's not "a shred of evidence" that it was the government, but instead you believe it was hackers hired by the government? I think I can smell my brain dying.
Of course it might just be the Chinese equivalent of Anonymous.
Do you have any idea how things work in China? Just think for a minute: Great Firewall of China, ring any bells? Go find some bandwidth statistics and see how hard it is for the Chinese to get access to fast internet connections, compared to places like South Korea or Japan. And if there really were some underground internet hacker movement composed of individuals in China -- and there isn't -- why on Earth would they attack Western newspapers, which mostly tell the truth, and not their own newspapers, which never do?
You're kind of ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that Apple didn't write MacOS X from the ground up.
An equally important elephant in the room is that Apple had been trying to write its own modern OS, with features like preemptive multitasking and memory protection, from the ground up, and it failed. Once Copland crashed and burned, Apple had wasted so much time that it had no choice but to acquire an OS -- or at least the foundations of an OS -- from some other source. NeXT ended up being it.
What makes no sense to me is why they'd use *Git* which is almost hostile towards the Windows platform, and not embrace Mercurial which has always been friendly to Windows users, offers capabilities similar to Git, and is designed more for ease of use and data integrity.
According to Microsoft, they chose Git because A.) It's the most popular these days, so by targeting that they reach the largest installed base; and B.) Git has not worked well with/on Windows, and they would like to change that.
Frankly, I'd prefer if more foreign students went back to where they came from to improve their own communities. I am amazed by the percentage of medical doctors in the USA who immigrated from third world countries and now earn their livings soaking middle class Americans. I want my doctor to actually care about my health, not just his bottom line.
And why would an American-born doctor be more likely to do that than a foreign-born one? He's stuck working in the same broken healthcare system that funnels profits to insurance companies over doctors.
I'm curious; what if you as a writer for El Reg were to receive some of these documents - what would you do with them?
It's a good question and -- with the understanding that I don't speak for The Register or its management -- the answer is that it really depends. I don't know what kind of information they supposedly stole. TFA says the files were named after Supreme Court judges. That tells me nothing. The information, if verifiable, might count as proof that a hack actually took place, but if someone shows me the cell phone numbers and home addresses of all the Justices, that information wouldn't itself be news.
In a broader sense, though, let's suppose we were the recipient of some major, Wikileaks-style information dump. What would we do? All I can say is that:
A.) It's a topic that has definitely come up in the newsroom before, on numerous occasions. B.) In some cases things can be a little dicey for us because, being a publication based in the UK, we are subject to UK libel laws, which are notoriously backwards and archaic. C.) Similar things have happened. For example, there are a fair number of tech-savvy people on staff. So if a story comes up that somebody stole a couple of gigs' worth of emails and "released it," one of us just might be sharp enough to figure out that there must be a torrent of them out there somewhere, and go fetch them. Fine; now we're sitting on a big pile of data that was illicitly obtained from the source. Is the leak already the subject of an investigation? Or litigation? By law, are we now complicit in the original crime? Do we then mention that we have reviewed the documents and that they are of such-and-such nature? Or do we just use the download to verify, for our own satisfaction, that the leak is in fact legitimate? If we mention that we have the documents, where do we say we got them from? Who is our "source"? If a Julian Assange steps up and offers something and says "I released this," that's one thing, but if an anonymous script kiddie just puts something out there it's a little different.
So I guess in summary, all I can say is that it depends. It depends on how important the story is. It depends on who is offering the information. It depends on the nature of the information, e.g. does it involve individuals, governments, etc.? It depends on who might be damaged by the release of the information, and to what extent, as well as how much public benefit there might be in releasing it. The answer is always going to vary on a case-by-case basis -- but where the very tricky cases are concerned, we do have lawyers we can ask.
That's the point- they're all as bad as each other. Why should I distrust a Chinese product any more than an American one? Neither government has exactly got a rosy reputation for due process in cyberspace.
You've short circuited your thinking. The difference is that in China, a company is synonymous with the government, but in America, companies and the government are separate.
Do American companies collaborate with the government? Sure, sometimes. Do they comply with government laws that gag them from talking about what they're doing? Sure, sometimes. But if I hear the US government has been killing people with drones, and then I'm thinking about doing business with Instagram, I don't think to myself, "Wait -- was Instagram in on that whole drone murder thing?"
With Chinese companies, the gray area is much darker, because you simply cannot do business there without close ties to the government.
Microsoft are doing it for the same reason I see Apple doing it - it makes business sense. Microsoft is no-longer able to steamroll standards through by becoming the de-facto standard.
But this was predicted, wasn't it?
What's that Gandhi said? "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
How many boxes has open source ticked off on that list?
Don't hate Microsoft. Just smile and nod. And if they become amazingly successful by using open source because "it makes business sense," and they play by the rules and they quit using dirty business tactics and they compete on merit and open source becomes an everyday part of their business... congratulate them.
If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?
If they contributed solely out of their own business interests, and their contributions add nothing of value other than compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary software, and nobody who doesn't want to use Microsoft's proprietary software will see any benefit whatsoever from any of the changes Microsoft contributed to the kernel, then yeah, I would say it's fair to rate Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel lower than those of a company like, say, Red Hat.
Those stories a couple years ago about how "Microsoft is now one of the top kernel contributors"? Look at it this way: That's how much Microsoft had to change the kernel to make it work with Microsoft's proprietary VM tech.
Fair enough. Microsoft's contributions are as welcome as anybody's, provided it plays by the rules. But are you saying we're supposed to congratulate them for it? Hardly, I say.
That is true. It is terrible that there is a generation of people who judge the company by their actions of today, and not by what the company did before they were born. Oh wait, no it isn't terrible.
Word. My parents never kept any slaves, either. Slavery is a myth.
Hopefully you have a QA team...if your project is large enough and you do not have a QA team, consider proposing the concept to management
I worked for a company that had a QA team. Basically, the presence of the QA team was seen as confirmation that every engineering decision was right and correct. Never mind that nobody ever listened to what the QA team said. The fact that they were allowed to speak up at meetings was proof that everything we did had "passed QA."
When I inquired as to why a local fast food restaurant was selling "shakes", not "milkshakes", I found out that they could not sell them as "milk" shakes because there was not enough milk in them. They were selling sweetened sawdust ( aka "cellulose" ).
My understanding is that McDonald's shakes are mostly potato starch. I think this is because it's more stable than half-melted ice cream; you can make the shakes quickly and they will have the consistency customers expect. Real ice cream shakes run the risk of liquefying prematurely. The part about them "not containing enough milk" is probably urban legend, though.
This guy isn't a security expert. He doesn't even know that Java is a programming language, and that Oracle's JVM is not "a version of Java used to surf the web".
You're assuming quite a lot there. I didn't see any sentence in there that said "Oracle's JVM is the version of Java used to surf the web." But most of the exploits we're talking about certainly do involve the version of Java used to surf the web -- the Java plugin. People who are just running desktop Java apps aren't vulnerable. These are browser exploits, or exploits that attack the interface between the plugin and the browser. If a Reuters reporter wants to simplify the language so that regular people can understand it, where's the harm?
Whistleblowing is when there is a crime taking place such as if innocent people are being murdered, tortured, etc. In the Cablegate leak there weren't any instances of human rights abuses that I could see.
Other than all those Iraqi civilians getting shot in that one video, I guess.
I'm not going to argue that what Manning did was in keeping with his oath or with U.S. law, but come on -- if the leaked information wasn't important and relevant, then what's all the goddamn fuss about? Why isn't Bradley Manning a free man today?
The leak wasn't worth the risk and to leak to Julian Assange, a foreign national??!
Oh, can the flag-waving. The leaked cables were all about U.S. foreign policy. Who would like to know about that -- whom does it concern -- if not foreign nationals?
But suppose Manning leaked the cables to someone who wasn't a foreign national. When that person went and turned over the information to The New York Times the way Assange did, I guess foreign nationals were just going to ignore it?
This is the dumbest argument against what Manning did that I've heard yet.
So does an attention seeking narcissist deserves death threats, which he has gotten?
For his narcissism? No. But he just gave an interview where he said he consciously made a decision that he knew might have literally ended another man's life. Death threats are one thing, but how many people have actively taken steps to kill Adrian Lamo -- the way he admits he did to Bradley Manning? I hope he realizes that there might be consequences for actions as grave as his, but I assume he doesn't, because he's a narcissist.
Does an attention seeking narcissist deserve the immense amount of gut level hate that's being thrown at him?
Again, for his narcissism? No on the "gut-level hate," whatever that means. But he certainly deserves my utmost contempt for being such a despicable person. You might think he did what he did out of some kind of pang of conscience, but as I've said, I don't buy that. Not one bit. He didn't do it for his country, or out of concern for Manning's mental health, or any of the other excuses. He did it for himself, because he's not really capable of thinking about anyone else. Whether it's his autism that makes him that way or whatever other reason, it still pretty much makes him scum, IMHO.
Seriously, Donald Trump has a better image than Adrian Lamo does to some of these guys.
Donald Trump is a television cartoon personality. Adrian Lamo is a real person who ruined another man's life in a way that hopefully none of us will ever experience, and he did it for pretty much no valid reason at all. I'll take Donald Trump.
For instance, wifi has become way more of a bitch than it was in Win7 and access to wifi status (seeing how much data is/has been transmitted, etc) seems to be missing.
Mouse to taskbar. Click on Network icon in the system tray. A big Network panel pops up from the right of the screen showing all the networks you're connected to and all the Wi-Fi networks that are available. Right click on the one you're connected to, choose "Show estimated data usage" from the menu. That took me less than ten seconds to figure out and I'd never even tried to find out my data usage before. I'd say that's pretty intuitive.
Well, that and the crashes/failures to awake from sleep. That's definitely a hardware problem, most likely related to bad/outdated drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
I have. You're still wrong. They are arguing for not discussing sex in very specific contexts for specific reasons. It's fallacious to extend that to a general proscription on discussing sex.
Care to explain the specific context and the specific reason? From the sound of it, they are arguing against having sex-ed talks at conferences because somebody might not be aware that a sex-ed talk might include topics that make rape survivors uncomfortable. Is there something more specific -- your word -- that makes this specific conference the wrong place for a sex talk?
Why add the "Neo One" to the name? You just won a case for a very valuable name in the electronics industry, why go adding extra crap to to let people know that it isn't really an iPhone?
You've kinda got it backwards. They "added the Neo One" because they had already been selling this model of phone as simply the Neo One. Then in October 2012, for whatever reason, they added the iphone part and started talking about how they owned the trademark, etc.
The phone itself is pretty lackluster. Gingerbread, 700MHz single-core processor, altogether pedestrian specs.
>> It's surprising how few novels are set in the workplace
LOTS of novels are written about the workplace. The critical point is that they don't get published.
Here's how it works: Some guy (they're almost always guys) goes to university, gets a BA in English, then goes off and gets a dull office job because he needs money to pay off his student loans, just like everybody else. Time goes by, and about ten years in he starts to grow unsatisfied with his situation and he thinks to himself, "Whatever happened to that novel I always said I was going to write?" And he vows to write a novel.
But what should the novel be about? Well, you know what they say: "Write what you know." And what does he know? Well, pretty much since he got out of college, he's been working at a boring, soul-numbing office job. He hates his coworkers and thinks they're all idiots. The boss is the worst of all. Great stuff, he thinks! He has piles of material to work with. And so he sets out to write his book about a guy working in an office.
The problem is A.) Unbeknownst to him, he is not the first person to have this idea;
B.) When you write a book where the main character is just some schlub in an office going around thinking he's superior to everybody else around him, that main character comes off like a dick;
C.) It turns out that the silly little situations that get you through your dreary days at the office are not really that amusing to anyone else -- or witty, or original, or insightful, etc.;
D.) It turns out that the office is not really a very fertile setting for fiction after all, and that the reason a lot of people who work office jobs bring books with them on the train in the morning is because they'd rather think about something else.
I am being dead serious about all of this. I've been told by literary agents that this type of book is probably the #2 submission received by fiction agents/editors from first-time authors, right after the thinly-veiled memoir of the author's college days disguised as a novel.
Like the latter book, the "novel about my suffering and toil at the office" is best seen as a practice run -- finish it if you must, but then immediately shelve it and start your second novel, which might be about something interesting.
The American version sucks, but I still think the UK original -- like most of Ricky Gervais's stuff -- is really quite bitingly funny.
The government is not one man, even in China. If it this did happen and was ever proven he would be forced out at the very least, if not prosecuted, even in China.
OK, now I think you're intentionally being thick.
Let's recap: You are the one suggesting that this was the work of one man, acting alone. I am the one telling you that this is virtually impossible, and an attack of this kind would never be done without official government sanction. So explain to me what your new argument is now, because you sure as hell sound like you're making my point for me.
I think you need to do some reading about China. My girlfriend is Chinese as it happens, so I have some interest in this subject.
I bow before the superior intellect, Khan.
It will be ignored until it can no longer be ignored (because incontrovertible proof is made public), at which point the powers that be will come down hard.
Yeah? And just when would that proof be made public. You mean the kind of "made public" like when the newspapers you attacked run stories about it and the entire world knows about it?
I am begging you ... begging you, now. THINK. Use your brain.
So they made a USB 3.0 flash drive that has a decent amount of space on it, priced it at a multiple more than the competition, and that's it? It doesn't even come with Windows 8, which is the purpose of buying this product. Great story brought to you by /., now advertising products that many will never, ever need (or want)!
The part they seem to have glossed over is that this is a secure USB key. Most of the storage is AES encrypted, with just a tiny unencrypted boot partition to handle the encryption.
Mind you, I saw this press release on Friday and it didn't sound particularly interesting to me, either.
Here's something interesting, though. Imation, which has been buying up various companies, including IronKey -- because apparently floppy disks aren't selling as well as they once did -- has managed to shed 88.5% of its share price since 2006.
A politician acting for themselves is not the same as the state deciding to sanction something. When a US politician goes to jail that doesn't mean that the government committed a crime or endorsed his behaviour.
OK, my guess was right. You really don't understand how things work in China. My recommendation is that you go to the library, grab back issues of some reputable news source (The Economist might be a good place to start) and read up on everything you can find about the last Chinese national election. Along the way you'll learn a lot about how free Chinese politicians are to act independently. (TL;DR - China ain't the US.)
Also, just think about what you're suggesting. This isn't some politician giving an order to have some hapless old man thrown in prison. That kind of thing happens all the time in China, and nobody ever hears about it. What you're saying, though, is that some lone politician, acting completely independently and on his own initiative, hired hackers to launch an attack on the two largest, most respected newspapers in the United States. Not even the largest companies -- the largest newspapers. Exactly how was this supposed rogue, lone wolf politician planning to cover up what he did?
This brand of cynicism is dull, and it creates its own form of self-fulfilling ignorance.
If nothing you see in the media is true and every journalist is a puppet of either advertisers or the government, then where do you get your news from, exactly?
There is only one possible answer, and that is: You make it up. You hear what people tell you, decide you're going to believe the opposite, and then you go around railing on the news for not saying what you believe.
In other words, you are a dolt.
You are assuming it was the Chinese government. So far I have not seen a shred of evidence to support that. There is some circumstantial evidence that the attacks may have originated from China, possibly.
It would actually make a lot more sense if it were hackers hired by the politician who has been the subject of these embarrassing stories.
OK, did I just read your whole comment to learn that you think there's not "a shred of evidence" that it was the government, but instead you believe it was hackers hired by the government? I think I can smell my brain dying.
Of course it might just be the Chinese equivalent of Anonymous.
Do you have any idea how things work in China? Just think for a minute: Great Firewall of China, ring any bells? Go find some bandwidth statistics and see how hard it is for the Chinese to get access to fast internet connections, compared to places like South Korea or Japan. And if there really were some underground internet hacker movement composed of individuals in China -- and there isn't -- why on Earth would they attack Western newspapers, which mostly tell the truth, and not their own newspapers, which never do?
You're kind of ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that Apple didn't write MacOS X from the ground up.
An equally important elephant in the room is that Apple had been trying to write its own modern OS, with features like preemptive multitasking and memory protection, from the ground up, and it failed. Once Copland crashed and burned, Apple had wasted so much time that it had no choice but to acquire an OS -- or at least the foundations of an OS -- from some other source. NeXT ended up being it.
What makes no sense to me is why they'd use *Git* which is almost hostile towards the Windows platform, and not embrace Mercurial which has always been friendly to Windows users, offers capabilities similar to Git, and is designed more for ease of use and data integrity.
According to Microsoft, they chose Git because A.) It's the most popular these days, so by targeting that they reach the largest installed base; and B.) Git has not worked well with/on Windows, and they would like to change that.
Frankly, I'd prefer if more foreign students went back to where they came from to improve their own communities. I am amazed by the percentage of medical doctors in the USA who immigrated from third world countries and now earn their livings soaking middle class Americans. I want my doctor to actually care about my health, not just his bottom line.
And why would an American-born doctor be more likely to do that than a foreign-born one? He's stuck working in the same broken healthcare system that funnels profits to insurance companies over doctors.
I'm curious; what if you as a writer for El Reg were to receive some of these documents - what would you do with them?
It's a good question and -- with the understanding that I don't speak for The Register or its management -- the answer is that it really depends. I don't know what kind of information they supposedly stole. TFA says the files were named after Supreme Court judges. That tells me nothing. The information, if verifiable, might count as proof that a hack actually took place, but if someone shows me the cell phone numbers and home addresses of all the Justices, that information wouldn't itself be news.
In a broader sense, though, let's suppose we were the recipient of some major, Wikileaks-style information dump. What would we do? All I can say is that:
A.) It's a topic that has definitely come up in the newsroom before, on numerous occasions.
B.) In some cases things can be a little dicey for us because, being a publication based in the UK, we are subject to UK libel laws, which are notoriously backwards and archaic.
C.) Similar things have happened. For example, there are a fair number of tech-savvy people on staff. So if a story comes up that somebody stole a couple of gigs' worth of emails and "released it," one of us just might be sharp enough to figure out that there must be a torrent of them out there somewhere, and go fetch them. Fine; now we're sitting on a big pile of data that was illicitly obtained from the source. Is the leak already the subject of an investigation? Or litigation? By law, are we now complicit in the original crime? Do we then mention that we have reviewed the documents and that they are of such-and-such nature? Or do we just use the download to verify, for our own satisfaction, that the leak is in fact legitimate? If we mention that we have the documents, where do we say we got them from? Who is our "source"? If a Julian Assange steps up and offers something and says "I released this," that's one thing, but if an anonymous script kiddie just puts something out there it's a little different.
So I guess in summary, all I can say is that it depends. It depends on how important the story is. It depends on who is offering the information. It depends on the nature of the information, e.g. does it involve individuals, governments, etc.? It depends on who might be damaged by the release of the information, and to what extent, as well as how much public benefit there might be in releasing it. The answer is always going to vary on a case-by-case basis -- but where the very tricky cases are concerned, we do have lawyers we can ask.
Anonymous will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents.
Well, that's one way to get the word out -- but word to the wise, going upstairs and showing your mom doesn't count as a "media outlet."
That's the point- they're all as bad as each other. Why should I distrust a Chinese product any more than an American one? Neither government has exactly got a rosy reputation for due process in cyberspace.
You've short circuited your thinking. The difference is that in China, a company is synonymous with the government, but in America, companies and the government are separate.
Do American companies collaborate with the government? Sure, sometimes. Do they comply with government laws that gag them from talking about what they're doing? Sure, sometimes. But if I hear the US government has been killing people with drones, and then I'm thinking about doing business with Instagram, I don't think to myself, "Wait -- was Instagram in on that whole drone murder thing?"
With Chinese companies, the gray area is much darker, because you simply cannot do business there without close ties to the government.
The Westernized name is Formosa (it's Portuguese).
Microsoft are doing it for the same reason I see Apple doing it - it makes business sense. Microsoft is no-longer able to steamroll standards through by becoming the de-facto standard.
But this was predicted, wasn't it?
What's that Gandhi said? "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
How many boxes has open source ticked off on that list?
Don't hate Microsoft. Just smile and nod. And if they become amazingly successful by using open source because "it makes business sense," and they play by the rules and they quit using dirty business tactics and they compete on merit and open source becomes an everyday part of their business ... congratulate them.
If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?
If they contributed solely out of their own business interests, and their contributions add nothing of value other than compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary software, and nobody who doesn't want to use Microsoft's proprietary software will see any benefit whatsoever from any of the changes Microsoft contributed to the kernel, then yeah, I would say it's fair to rate Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel lower than those of a company like, say, Red Hat.
Those stories a couple years ago about how "Microsoft is now one of the top kernel contributors"? Look at it this way: That's how much Microsoft had to change the kernel to make it work with Microsoft's proprietary VM tech.
Fair enough. Microsoft's contributions are as welcome as anybody's, provided it plays by the rules. But are you saying we're supposed to congratulate them for it? Hardly, I say.
That is true. It is terrible that there is a generation of people who judge the company by their actions of today, and not by what the company did before they were born. Oh wait, no it isn't terrible.
Word. My parents never kept any slaves, either. Slavery is a myth.
Hopefully you have a QA team...if your project is large enough and you do not have a QA team, consider proposing the concept to management
I worked for a company that had a QA team. Basically, the presence of the QA team was seen as confirmation that every engineering decision was right and correct. Never mind that nobody ever listened to what the QA team said. The fact that they were allowed to speak up at meetings was proof that everything we did had "passed QA."
When I inquired as to why a local fast food restaurant was selling "shakes", not "milkshakes", I found out that they could not sell them as "milk" shakes because there was not enough milk in them. They were selling sweetened sawdust ( aka "cellulose" ).
My understanding is that McDonald's shakes are mostly potato starch. I think this is because it's more stable than half-melted ice cream; you can make the shakes quickly and they will have the consistency customers expect. Real ice cream shakes run the risk of liquefying prematurely. The part about them "not containing enough milk" is probably urban legend, though.
This guy isn't a security expert. He doesn't even know that Java is a programming language, and that Oracle's JVM is not "a version of Java used to surf the web".
You're assuming quite a lot there. I didn't see any sentence in there that said "Oracle's JVM is the version of Java used to surf the web." But most of the exploits we're talking about certainly do involve the version of Java used to surf the web -- the Java plugin. People who are just running desktop Java apps aren't vulnerable. These are browser exploits, or exploits that attack the interface between the plugin and the browser. If a Reuters reporter wants to simplify the language so that regular people can understand it, where's the harm?
Whistleblowing is when there is a crime taking place such as if innocent people are being murdered, tortured, etc. In the Cablegate leak there weren't any instances of human rights abuses that I could see.
Other than all those Iraqi civilians getting shot in that one video, I guess.
I'm not going to argue that what Manning did was in keeping with his oath or with U.S. law, but come on -- if the leaked information wasn't important and relevant, then what's all the goddamn fuss about? Why isn't Bradley Manning a free man today?
The leak wasn't worth the risk and to leak to Julian Assange, a foreign national??!
Oh, can the flag-waving. The leaked cables were all about U.S. foreign policy. Who would like to know about that -- whom does it concern -- if not foreign nationals?
But suppose Manning leaked the cables to someone who wasn't a foreign national. When that person went and turned over the information to The New York Times the way Assange did, I guess foreign nationals were just going to ignore it?
This is the dumbest argument against what Manning did that I've heard yet.
So does an attention seeking narcissist deserves death threats, which he has gotten?
For his narcissism? No. But he just gave an interview where he said he consciously made a decision that he knew might have literally ended another man's life. Death threats are one thing, but how many people have actively taken steps to kill Adrian Lamo -- the way he admits he did to Bradley Manning? I hope he realizes that there might be consequences for actions as grave as his, but I assume he doesn't, because he's a narcissist.
Does an attention seeking narcissist deserve the immense amount of gut level hate that's being thrown at him?
Again, for his narcissism? No on the "gut-level hate," whatever that means. But he certainly deserves my utmost contempt for being such a despicable person. You might think he did what he did out of some kind of pang of conscience, but as I've said, I don't buy that. Not one bit. He didn't do it for his country, or out of concern for Manning's mental health, or any of the other excuses. He did it for himself, because he's not really capable of thinking about anyone else. Whether it's his autism that makes him that way or whatever other reason, it still pretty much makes him scum, IMHO.
Seriously, Donald Trump has a better image than Adrian Lamo does to some of these guys.
Donald Trump is a television cartoon personality. Adrian Lamo is a real person who ruined another man's life in a way that hopefully none of us will ever experience, and he did it for pretty much no valid reason at all. I'll take Donald Trump.
For instance, wifi has become way more of a bitch than it was in Win7 and access to wifi status (seeing how much data is/has been transmitted, etc) seems to be missing.
Mouse to taskbar. Click on Network icon in the system tray. A big Network panel pops up from the right of the screen showing all the networks you're connected to and all the Wi-Fi networks that are available. Right click on the one you're connected to, choose "Show estimated data usage" from the menu. That took me less than ten seconds to figure out and I'd never even tried to find out my data usage before. I'd say that's pretty intuitive.
Well, that and the crashes/failures to awake from sleep.
That's definitely a hardware problem, most likely related to bad/outdated drivers.