The point he was making is that they could just be playing on PC. You have a very freedom-minded, open source (if you want it), gaming platform that has a huge library of games to go along with it. Oh, main game servers taken down? Get on something like GameRanger to play online without the official servers. The point, I think you missed it.
Next time your Internet is out remember there is someone out there saying you could be playing golf instead.
America has turned into a very weak society. Lets all run around with our panties in a bunch and do what we are told.
Theater chains don't want to run the movie because of liability concerns, Sony does't want to launch the movie in a limited number of theaters. It all comes down to dollars and lawyers in the end.
"very weak society" because movie premier was delayed == entitlement syndrome
If you want to see Americans not giving a fuck, give businesses legal immunity for anything bad that happens. (LoL @ ^, like you ever need to look very hard)
Now excuse me, I'm going to put in Team America and draw silly cartoons of Kim Dot Ill John whatever his name is.
but if the Apple model had prevailed, I think technology would not be as far along. But it's impossible to say what if.
That's a silly thing to say. If Apple wasn't around, what would desktop PC makers have looked up to the past fifteen years?
We'd have had PS2 connectors, floppy drives, beige boxes, flaky suspend/resume, x86 BIOS, 32-bit processors, no built-in 3D acceleration, no built-in WiFi, 100mb ethernet, etc. for even LONGER than we did. Do you remember having to buy PCI-USB cards, PCI WiFi adaptors, unaccelerated desktop interfaces, rolling the dice on resume from sleep, PS2/USB converters?? I do.
What exactly is this technology-retarding "Apple model" in your mind? Sorry man, it's just silly to hear something along the lines of "if Apple prevailed, we wouldn't have nice things" when they have been the lead in most of the nice things PCs have. If Apple prevailed... IDK, MAYBE Dell would have made nice computers sooner and we'd still be where we are at today?
The point is that the technology has advanced to the point that people can help a dog. This in itself is not much of an advance, but it demonstrates some of the potential of the advances that are being made. Oncethe cost of technology is reduced and it becomes more readlily available people do cool stuff and sometimes help someone or something else. Sometimes people just do cool stuff with technology. Now turn in your geek card since you cannot simply enjoy something cool that is also helpful for a dog.
Advanced to what point? 3D prototyping isn't new. Animal prosthetics isn't new. Deciding a single hunk of extruded plastic is good enough to strap directly on a dog isn't a huge accomplishment. Dogs don't complaint about lack of comfort...
This story bugs me, not the tech. It skips the whole development and production cost angle of 3D proto^H^H^H^H^Hmanufacturing, which in my opinion is the most important part.
The pet owner didn't call up Pet Legs R' Us and order an affordable custom prostheses which was promptly delivered. THAT would be a story worth telling, how 3D printing enabled a business and service like that. Such a business would, we should hope, understand each animal's range of motion well, and the bigger picture, quality of life. How good are new legs if we screw up their spine in a year?
This story is more about some goodwill from people running a 3D fab shop. They should get some presents from Santa this year, but it's a really crappy tech story. While we're just giving things away, an even better story would be a shop milling a prosthesis out of solid titanium - because that is more difficult, expensive, and awesome than plastic. Could we run that story as "How a CNC mill Let a Dog Run for the First Time"?
That is why Android auto and CarPlay both run atop of QNX. Something Apple and Google downplay.
I was under the impression CarPlay was something like an X server for your iPhone. As in it runs on whatever your infotainment system happens to be.
Why is it notable what that system is? The whole point of these is to offload infotainment functions to your mobile devices, and turn the car hardware into a dumb terminal.
Heh, I bet most _remote_ X servers run on Windows... but who gives a crap, we don't think about it that way, we think about the apps.
If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country. Similarly, if the data in question are related to Microsoft's US operations, then MS, being a corporation incorporated in the US, should be required to produce them.
And what do you think of MS's rebuttal of that position?
"Imagine this scenario. Officers of the local Stadtpolizei investigating a suspected leak to the press descend on Deutsche Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany," Microsoft said. "They serve a warrant to seize a bundle of private letters that a New York Times reporter is storing in a safe deposit box at a Deutsche Bank USA branch in Manhattan. The bank complies by ordering the New York branch manager to open the reporter's box with a master key, rummage through it, and fax the private letters to the Stadtpolizei."
Allowing things like this is going down a similar road to "well if the CIA wants to torture foreign nationals, then they can't complain about foreign s[y agencies torturing US citizens"
Comparing an email account to a safe deposit box seems more than a little disingenuous because any free email service provider will make it clear as day that "your" information is theirs to do what they please with.
Anything in this privacy statement that the law does not require is just a PROMISE, and they can change their terms on a whim. They SAY "your content" but what puts them in the position to dictate the terms? Read "We may" and "We will not" as "We can"
http://www.microsoft.com/priva... "We may share or disclose personal information with other Microsoft controlled subsidiaries and affiliates, and with vendors or agents working on our behalf. For example, companies we've hired to provide customer service support or assist in protecting and securing our systems and services may need access to personal information in order to provide those functions. In such cases, these companies must abide by our data privacy requirements and are not allowed to use the information for any other purpose. We may also disclose personal information as part of a corporate transaction such as a merger or sale of assets. Finally, we may access, disclose and preserve your personal information, including your private content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to: comply with applicable law or respond to valid legal process from competent authorities, including from law enforcement or other government agencies; protect our customers, for example to prevent spam or attempts to defraud users of the services, or to help prevent the loss of life or serious injury of anyone; operate and maintain the security of our services, including to prevent or stop an attack on our computer systems or networks; or protect the rights or property of Microsoft, including enforcing the terms governing the use of the services – however, if we receive information indicating that someone is using our services to traffic in stolen intellectual or physical property of Microsoft, we will not inspect a customer’s private content ourselves, but we may refer the matter to law enforcement."
Yes I KNOW Microsoft (and Apple, Google, Yahoo, etc.) are TRYING to make the claim this is not their information to give away when it's inconvenient to do so, but they sure are hanging onto their right to do it aren't they all?
The issue is that Apple claims that each app is vetted for potential security issues. By most definitions of the term, "fraud" falls under the category "security issue". Consequently, the discovery of even one fraud app means that Apple is not vetting apps in a manner consistent with what they claim.
That's what I've been saying, Apple just isn't popular enough to attract the number of hackers for real security issues. One day some hackers might take notice of them, but they are lucky it's only one or two for now!
I'm a fan of tape backup when managed responsibly, but there's a fallacy that goes with recommending tape for backups: because you can train semitechnical users to dutifully change tapes and carry them offsite (e.g. on a bank run to a safe deposit box), tape gets recommended for businesses who don't have dedicated IT. But the duty of of maintaining the backup gets delegated from the original trained user, and changing the tapes becomes the whole of the backup maintenance: no one actually verifies that the backup job is running properly. I've been on calls to clients who've diligently changes their tapes nightly, but the backup software has been crashed for months...
This is not a tape problem, it's a very common backup system problem, regardless of the design. Backups are an insurance policy people let lapse and try to make claims on later.
For about the last decade, tape has lagged so far behind hard drives that this hasn't been the case. You couldn't back up a high-capacity hard drive on last-generation tape. In fact, the current-generation LTO-6 only holds 2.5 TB uncompressed, so in the worst case, you can back up any hard drive built before 2010 (when the first 3 TB hard drives came out). And that tape technology didn't come out until 2012.
And you'll spend almost $3k on the drive, plus $45 per tape, or $18 per terabyte. Hard drives are currently running at $30 per TB. So ignoring differences in risk between a hard drive on a shelf and a tape, the break-even point is at a whopping 250 TB—almost an order of magnitude more than is reasonable for most businesses, much less consumers. Unless you're doing data warehousing, this break-even point is simply too high to be practical.
By your own logic, 250 TB would be quickly reached by merely a hundred old workstations and servers from 2010 - that's silly. Also, we use raw storage in the context of _individual_ incompressible backup sets, not backup data at scale, because very few places backup a high ratio of incompressible data overall.
What's the cost of doubling your storage capacity with either technology, for a few iterations? It's buy more tapes vs. $2&%fhqwgads!!1 You'll buy a jukebox and few drives at some point but be on your n'th storage array on the other end.
You can't just toss a couple more hard drives into a full DataDomain, but you CAN rotate tapes out of a my-first-tape-system-jr.
The correct way to identify a cheater is by what they DON'T do.
Cheaters don't: 1) Check common hiding spots. 2) Hop. 3) Dive. 4) Dodge / strafe. 5) Voice or text chat. 6) Reload until they're out. 7) Do anything with thrown weapons (knives, grenades, etc). 8) Go into the center of the map (they stay on edge where no one can get behind them and thus not be seen by the wall hack).
Statements like cheaters trace you through walls is ridiculous. I can trace you through walls because I have 7.1 sound and hear you.
EASY TO MAINTAIN LOW-TECH SOLUTIONS IMHO, the best way to deal with cheaters is every game should have a "weapon" like Modern Warfare's shield. Aimbot cheats focus on the center mass where you are invulnerable using shield. I love using shield to pwn cheaters and mocking them for having hacks and still dying. They go away very quickly.
Your list is all wrong, are you talking about a straight up BOT? Cheaters make a lumpy bell curve, and most are not bots. Most cheats are MUCH more subtle. They make the average player feel like the deck is stacked against them.
Listening for footsteps, THANK YOU! An old school cheat from the Quake 1 era is replacing footstep and grenade priming sounds with LOUDER versions. Is it as bad as a radar hack, NO, is it cheating, YES. Another example of subtle cheating was a proxy that automatically recorded the time quad damage/weapons got picked up and warned you when each were about to respawn so you could magically get to the right place at the right time.
There is nothing easy about catching these. By the way, the open source Quake 1 auto aim hack had toggles to aim for the feet, center, or head, back in late 90's, so don't count on that center of mass thing for much.
Also, for forced matched games like Modern Warfare 2 & 3, there should be a "I never want to play with this person again" button. Kind of an "anti-friend" button. Once their client can't find anyone to match with they won't be back.
THAT is the first good idea I've read here. They could even network these with your friends like Slashdot's foe-of-a-friend thing.
When I first saw SMF break I had absolutely no clue why I couldnt ssh into the machine nor where to start looking. It was when I discovered that sshd startup was dependent on utmp being available which depended on filesystem mounting being successful that I knew for sure that systemd style init was nothing I wanted.
So if SSH still has that dependency but not enforced, and it starts up before utmp is mounted, and you fix the filesystem problem and move on... As experienced admins, I don't think either of us know what state SSH is actually in at that point, and we shouldn't be guessing. Is it working, but not logging logins? Do you happen to troll all your daemon logs for random errors... provided this condition is even logged in a sensible manner?
As inconvenient as it is (yes, I know), this feature is to prevent us entering unknown state as much as possible. If I can make an educated guess, the real problem in that scenario was likely/etc/fstab configuration vs. reality, an unknown state puss-wound.
WAAAAAAY too often in Unix-land people gloss over things like this in favor of the simpler olden days when we just ignored these problems. If those services are designed to be up in a certain order, why take it any other way? Should remote login be available with fewer dependencies - YES! What does that have to do with Init enforcing the ones it does have - NOTHING.
Different subject, but related to what I just said... I saw someone above say they don't have to reboot because they can "restart a daemon"./facepalm Use "lsof" next time you patch guys, it's just not that simple, and if you have to take services offline anyway, you may as well reboot just so you know things like fstab are actually correct...
"unless it's being done by a 14yo who installed VNC on your machine and is just fucking with you"
Which is probably what it was. My guess is: Some 14yo didn't like her political views and decided to fuck with her, and used some social engineering tricks to make her think it was the big bad gubmint.
Betcha the classified documents came from Wikileaks or were forgeries.
Teenagers don't give a crap about political views, they'd do it just for fun.
Indubitably. Win10 Test is a product demo. So Microsoft is going to monitor it in a way that would be unfeasible for a shipping OS. They're trying to collect user data to make sure people are using Win10 the way they THINK people are going to use it. This is a byproduct of the Windows 8 metro/modern UI fiasco. If they don't disable/remove this level of monitoring when the OS ships, corporate customers will simply opt not to run with the OS...AGAIN.
Seriously, NO company that's in ANY way serious about security is going to put up with a built in keylogger that's reporting back to MommySoft.
Apple is doing the same thing with a live, shipping OS. Which is completely fucking heinous.
Now, will they get away with it?
Probably, because the rabid, turtleneck-and-jeans brigade of Mac fanatics will buy absolutely ANYTHING from Apple, so long as it has the Apple logo on it.
As I stated elsewhere on this page, no, iOS is based on BSD. OS X is also based on BSD, but that doesn't mean iOS is based on OS X.
There are many similarities, but for obvious reasons, they had to strip a lot out in iOS to make it practical for mobile hardware.
And no, BSD isn't UNIX, nor is OS X. They are posix-compliant operating systems, like Linux, AUX, and HP UX. None of them are actually UNIX anymore. All split from actual UNIX long ago. But they are all "unix-like" operating systems.
Well since we're all nitpicking, UNIX(R) is a trademark, just like POSIX(R) and you can call your butt either one if it's certified.
_If_ the above systems are actually certified to be POSIX compliant to some degree, they could also be a test away from being UNIX certified, to some degree.
IF we're just calling all the above "[POSIX|UNIX]-like", they all qualify... to some degree.
"Remind me to clean my AC filter in 2 weeks" "Remind me to pay my car taxes on October 25th" "Remind me to do the laundry when I get home"
Stuff like that and it works great. I don't really use it for texting or notes since it makes too many mistakes but I think that's more of my problem. I feel weird talking to a computer so I talk weird and not loud enough.
Directions while driving, or just for an ETA, you can say "ETA to work" if it has your work address. Sending a quick text while driving "Be there 20 minutes late" "send it" is better than actually texting, or calling - if you don't have hands free.
I've used it to do some quick math while I was driving, milage maybe? It's all stuff you can do with a little tapping, you just need to get over the notion that you're asking someone to do these dumb/lazy things for you. Even for stuff you would be ok asking someone in the passenger seat to do like directions, Siri is still faster...
Terrorists don't give a crap about your airline experience. Queue up First World Problems.
They are much more concerned with politics, religion and ideology, and the use of violence or threats to those ends. Hold on, that might actually be the definition of terrorism, you all might want to check. If it's not aimed at changing minds, terrorism is probably not the word you are looking for.
Believe it or not, there are people out there that would kill you because you disagree with them, or just... because. When they do we call them "Murderers". That's just one of the things your country tries to prevent with their inconvenient security policies.
I'm completely fine seeing things move away from the older "GUI driving non-interactive commands in the background" model, to GUIs and CLIs that are built on shared libraries, because that potentially gives us THREE usable interfaces. However, is it normal for a CLI to lag behind the GUI now in Linuxland?
I see that blivet comes from Anaconda, so I expect some integration there. It seems like a good CLI could be used to avoid the awkward practice of writing out a kickstart partition fragment from the pre section. We could just drive Anaconda's partitioning directly from %pre with shell logic instead of pooping out Anaconda-ese to be parsed later.
So where's my damned anaconda partitioning CLI already, this would affect more [important] people than yet another partition GUI!!
Do you feel that way about, say, grenades and stuff?
Oh God, don't go there, People defending the right of 70 pound gilrs to blow the head off of range instructors with automatic pistols on "Guns and God" vacations will ge really pissed now.
Amen, girls should weigh at least 75 pounds to blow the heads off range instructors, write your congressmen!
A properly designed browser using *nix philosophy wouldn't do those things directly, instead it would use plugins to add that functionality.
An init system should do one thing and do it well, manage the startup of services when called. A proper *nix designed system for monitoring and restart would CALL init, but it shouldn't BE init, otherwise it violates the principle of modularity.
Consider for example looking for all the active settings in a standard Linux config file:
grep -v ^# ldap.conf | tr -s '\n'
By using two standard tools you can do something pretty fancy, basically stripping out all the comments. Could grep be enhanced to include the newline trimming feature? Of course it could, but that's not grep's job, its purpose is to match things not trim things. By keeping the scope narrow you reduce the error space and provide a more flexible toolset.
If you design the monitoring system into init then it can't be used generically to monitor other things and you lose half the value of the tool you've created.
egrep -v '^#|^$' ldap.conf ?
You're deciding boundaries arbitrarily. For example, who decided all the functions of tr belong in one command? Why are we even comparing userland tools to system functions? Why do you use dd to do EBCDIC-ACSII translation instead of... the translate command?
How old is SysV init? How has its "Well I assume I started something, JOB'S DONE!" interface with the rest of the system benefitted us all this time? How can you even connect that to something? You can't trust the exit codes from.. well anything, start/stop/or status because too many scripts just return 0. You can't trust status to exist everywhere or even work right. You can't trust a stop to actually kill all processes.
If nobody is going to make init in its current bounds _determinate_, then who really cares if the replacement is more or less modular.
What's funny is it actually has the ability, and nobody uses it except for gettys.
This. Actually, in RHEL/CentOS, you can simply run/etc/rc every minute via cron and it'll sync what's running with what's supposed to be, assuming things have been/sbin/service stopped. (And if they haven't been cleanly stopped, you need a specialized tool that understands how to *TEST* the service rather than rely on subsys.)
It's not THAT hard.
Let's use Apache as an example. Typical Apache screw up... user reports site is not responding apachectl restart says ports are already in use...
apachectl stop pgrep httpd... see's the old httpd session leader and some friends chilling out./facetokeyboard "You stupid P.O.S." pkill -9 httpd apachectl start
Many of us have been here, and it's very dumb. A modernized service control system should have a basic two way channel to the daemons. You stay on the line or get whacked, and while you're alive you deal with all your child process problems and let us know. What's that specialized tool supposed to do that the service itself cannot? This really simple system lets you know all the shades of gray between "running" and "stopped"
Like: "starting, but I need to do a consistency check, and this may take a while" "running, sort of..." "stopping, well I'm not available anymore, but you can't start me again yet" "I know enough to stop trying on my own until an operator intervenes"
That sounds like a good way to create an infinite loop of crashing and restarting services.
I read about this sweet new trick in Windows 2000 where you can configure a number of automatic service restart attempts, the interval between them, and an interval in which that count might reset and start over if you want it to.
Honestly, I think the two "sides" here are really the one that has cursory knowledge of the evolution of other operating systems over the past two decades and the side that's basically 90's Linux-Amish.
Nothing is broken with Linux. But by now I believe something very fundamental is broken in a highly dangerous fashion with the systemd developers. They hardly seem to qualify as UNIX folks at all with their mind-set....
Linux systems are basically the least unixy "unix-like" systems around. It's a bit late in the game to be a UNIX purist on Linux IMHO. Do what works best.
Slashdot Mirror
The point he was making is that they could just be playing on PC. You have a very freedom-minded, open source (if you want it), gaming platform that has a huge library of games to go along with it. Oh, main game servers taken down? Get on something like GameRanger to play online without the official servers. The point, I think you missed it.
Next time your Internet is out remember there is someone out there saying you could be playing golf instead.
America has turned into a very weak society. Lets all run around with our panties in a bunch and do what we are told.
Theater chains don't want to run the movie because of liability concerns, Sony does't want to launch the movie in a limited number of theaters. It all comes down to dollars and lawyers in the end.
"very weak society" because movie premier was delayed == entitlement syndrome
If you want to see Americans not giving a fuck, give businesses legal immunity for anything bad that happens.
(LoL @ ^, like you ever need to look very hard)
Now excuse me, I'm going to put in Team America and draw silly cartoons of Kim Dot Ill John whatever his name is.
but if the Apple model had prevailed, I think technology would not be as far along. But it's impossible to say what if.
That's a silly thing to say. If Apple wasn't around, what would desktop PC makers have looked up to the past fifteen years?
We'd have had PS2 connectors, floppy drives, beige boxes, flaky suspend/resume, x86 BIOS, 32-bit processors, no built-in 3D acceleration, no built-in WiFi, 100mb ethernet, etc. for even LONGER than we did. Do you remember having to buy PCI-USB cards, PCI WiFi adaptors, unaccelerated desktop interfaces, rolling the dice on resume from sleep, PS2/USB converters?? I do.
What exactly is this technology-retarding "Apple model" in your mind? Sorry man, it's just silly to hear something along the lines of "if Apple prevailed, we wouldn't have nice things" when they have been the lead in most of the nice things PCs have. If Apple prevailed... IDK, MAYBE Dell would have made nice computers sooner and we'd still be where we are at today?
The point is that the technology has advanced to the point that people can help a dog. This in itself is not much of an advance, but it demonstrates some of the potential of the advances that are being made. Oncethe cost of technology is reduced and it becomes more readlily available people do cool stuff and sometimes help someone or something else. Sometimes people just do cool stuff with technology. Now turn in your geek card since you cannot simply enjoy something cool that is also helpful for a dog.
Advanced to what point? 3D prototyping isn't new. Animal prosthetics isn't new. Deciding a single hunk of extruded plastic is good enough to strap directly on a dog isn't a huge accomplishment. Dogs don't complaint about lack of comfort...
This story bugs me, not the tech.
It skips the whole development and production cost angle of 3D proto^H^H^H^H^Hmanufacturing, which in my opinion is the most important part.
The pet owner didn't call up Pet Legs R' Us and order an affordable custom prostheses which was promptly delivered. THAT would be a story worth telling, how 3D printing enabled a business and service like that. Such a business would, we should hope, understand each animal's range of motion well, and the bigger picture, quality of life. How good are new legs if we screw up their spine in a year?
This story is more about some goodwill from people running a 3D fab shop. They should get some presents from Santa this year, but it's a really crappy tech story.
While we're just giving things away, an even better story would be a shop milling a prosthesis out of solid titanium - because that is more difficult, expensive, and awesome than plastic. Could we run that story as "How a CNC mill Let a Dog Run for the First Time"?
That is why Android auto and CarPlay both run atop of QNX. Something Apple and Google downplay.
I was under the impression CarPlay was something like an X server for your iPhone. As in it runs on whatever your infotainment system happens to be.
Why is it notable what that system is? The whole point of these is to offload infotainment functions to your mobile devices, and turn the car hardware into a dumb terminal.
Heh, I bet most _remote_ X servers run on Windows... but who gives a crap, we don't think about it that way, we think about the apps.
If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country. Similarly, if the data in question are related to Microsoft's US operations, then MS, being a corporation incorporated in the US, should be required to produce them.
And what do you think of MS's rebuttal of that position?
"Imagine this scenario. Officers of the local Stadtpolizei investigating a suspected leak to the press descend on Deutsche Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany," Microsoft said. "They serve a warrant to seize a bundle of private letters that a New York Times reporter is storing in a safe deposit box at a Deutsche Bank USA branch in Manhattan. The bank complies by ordering the New York branch manager to open the reporter's box with a master key, rummage through it, and fax the private letters to the Stadtpolizei."
Allowing things like this is going down a similar road to "well if the CIA wants to torture foreign nationals, then they can't complain about foreign s[y agencies torturing US citizens"
Comparing an email account to a safe deposit box seems more than a little disingenuous because any free email service provider will make it clear as day that "your" information is theirs to do what they please with.
Anything in this privacy statement that the law does not require is just a PROMISE, and they can change their terms on a whim. They SAY "your content" but what puts them in the position to dictate the terms? Read "We may" and "We will not" as "We can"
http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
"We may share or disclose personal information with other Microsoft controlled subsidiaries and affiliates, and with vendors or agents working on our behalf. For example, companies we've hired to provide customer service support or assist in protecting and securing our systems and services may need access to personal information in order to provide those functions. In such cases, these companies must abide by our data privacy requirements and are not allowed to use the information for any other purpose. We may also disclose personal information as part of a corporate transaction such as a merger or sale of assets.
Finally, we may access, disclose and preserve your personal information, including your private content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to:
comply with applicable law or respond to valid legal process from competent authorities, including from law enforcement or other government agencies;
protect our customers, for example to prevent spam or attempts to defraud users of the services, or to help prevent the loss of life or serious injury of anyone;
operate and maintain the security of our services, including to prevent or stop an attack on our computer systems or networks; or
protect the rights or property of Microsoft, including enforcing the terms governing the use of the services – however, if we receive information indicating that someone is using our services to traffic in stolen intellectual or physical property of Microsoft, we will not inspect a customer’s private content ourselves, but we may refer the matter to law enforcement."
Yes I KNOW Microsoft (and Apple, Google, Yahoo, etc.) are TRYING to make the claim this is not their information to give away when it's inconvenient to do so, but they sure are hanging onto their right to do it aren't they all?
The issue is that Apple claims that each app is vetted for potential security issues. By most definitions of the term, "fraud" falls under the category "security issue". Consequently, the discovery of even one fraud app means that Apple is not vetting apps in a manner consistent with what they claim.
That's what I've been saying, Apple just isn't popular enough to attract the number of hackers for real security issues. One day some hackers might take notice of them, but they are lucky it's only one or two for now!
So that's really $40/2.5TB in the real world. Who has large amounts of data that is compressible? NOBODY.
Unless you're sitting on a mountain of pictures or video, you probably do.
Now I understand picture and video archives exist, but that's not the norm.
I'm a fan of tape backup when managed responsibly, but there's a fallacy that goes with recommending tape for backups: because you can train semitechnical users to dutifully change tapes and carry them offsite (e.g. on a bank run to a safe deposit box), tape gets recommended for businesses who don't have dedicated IT. But the duty of of maintaining the backup gets delegated from the original trained user, and changing the tapes becomes the whole of the backup maintenance: no one actually verifies that the backup job is running properly. I've been on calls to clients who've diligently changes their tapes nightly, but the backup software has been crashed for months...
This is not a tape problem, it's a very common backup system problem, regardless of the design. Backups are an insurance policy people let lapse and try to make claims on later.
For about the last decade, tape has lagged so far behind hard drives that this hasn't been the case. You couldn't back up a high-capacity hard drive on last-generation tape. In fact, the current-generation LTO-6 only holds 2.5 TB uncompressed, so in the worst case, you can back up any hard drive built before 2010 (when the first 3 TB hard drives came out). And that tape technology didn't come out until 2012.
And you'll spend almost $3k on the drive, plus $45 per tape, or $18 per terabyte. Hard drives are currently running at $30 per TB. So ignoring differences in risk between a hard drive on a shelf and a tape, the break-even point is at a whopping 250 TB—almost an order of magnitude more than is reasonable for most businesses, much less consumers. Unless you're doing data warehousing, this break-even point is simply too high to be practical.
By your own logic, 250 TB would be quickly reached by merely a hundred old workstations and servers from 2010 - that's silly.
Also, we use raw storage in the context of _individual_ incompressible backup sets, not backup data at scale, because very few places backup a high ratio of incompressible data overall.
What's the cost of doubling your storage capacity with either technology, for a few iterations? It's buy more tapes vs. $2&%fhqwgads!!1
You'll buy a jukebox and few drives at some point but be on your n'th storage array on the other end.
You can't just toss a couple more hard drives into a full DataDomain, but you CAN rotate tapes out of a my-first-tape-system-jr.
NO.
The correct way to identify a cheater is by what they DON'T do.
Cheaters don't:
1) Check common hiding spots.
2) Hop.
3) Dive.
4) Dodge / strafe.
5) Voice or text chat.
6) Reload until they're out.
7) Do anything with thrown weapons (knives, grenades, etc).
8) Go into the center of the map (they stay on edge where no one can get behind them and thus not be seen by the wall hack).
Statements like cheaters trace you through walls is ridiculous. I can trace you through walls because I have 7.1 sound and hear you.
EASY TO MAINTAIN LOW-TECH SOLUTIONS
IMHO, the best way to deal with cheaters is every game should have a "weapon" like Modern Warfare's shield. Aimbot cheats focus on the center mass where you are invulnerable using shield. I love using shield to pwn cheaters and mocking them for having hacks and still dying. They go away very quickly.
Your list is all wrong, are you talking about a straight up BOT? Cheaters make a lumpy bell curve, and most are not bots. Most cheats are MUCH more subtle. They make the average player feel like the deck is stacked against them.
Listening for footsteps, THANK YOU! An old school cheat from the Quake 1 era is replacing footstep and grenade priming sounds with LOUDER versions. Is it as bad as a radar hack, NO, is it cheating, YES. Another example of subtle cheating was a proxy that automatically recorded the time quad damage/weapons got picked up and warned you when each were about to respawn so you could magically get to the right place at the right time.
There is nothing easy about catching these. By the way, the open source Quake 1 auto aim hack had toggles to aim for the feet, center, or head, back in late 90's, so don't count on that center of mass thing for much.
Also, for forced matched games like Modern Warfare 2 & 3, there should be a "I never want to play with this person again" button. Kind of an "anti-friend" button. Once their client can't find anyone to match with they won't be back.
THAT is the first good idea I've read here. They could even network these with your friends like Slashdot's foe-of-a-friend thing.
When I first saw SMF break I had absolutely no clue why I couldnt ssh into the machine nor where to start looking. It was when I discovered that sshd startup was dependent on utmp being available which depended on filesystem mounting being successful that I knew for sure that systemd style init was nothing I wanted.
So if SSH still has that dependency but not enforced, and it starts up before utmp is mounted, and you fix the filesystem problem and move on...
As experienced admins, I don't think either of us know what state SSH is actually in at that point, and we shouldn't be guessing. Is it working, but not logging logins? Do you happen to troll all your daemon logs for random errors... provided this condition is even logged in a sensible manner?
As inconvenient as it is (yes, I know), this feature is to prevent us entering unknown state as much as possible. /etc/fstab configuration vs. reality, an unknown state puss-wound.
If I can make an educated guess, the real problem in that scenario was likely
WAAAAAAY too often in Unix-land people gloss over things like this in favor of the simpler olden days when we just ignored these problems. If those services are designed to be up in a certain order, why take it any other way? Should remote login be available with fewer dependencies - YES! What does that have to do with Init enforcing the ones it does have - NOTHING.
Different subject, but related to what I just said... I saw someone above say they don't have to reboot because they can "restart a daemon". /facepalm
Use "lsof" next time you patch guys, it's just not that simple, and if you have to take services offline anyway, you may as well reboot just so you know things like fstab are actually correct...
"unless it's being done by a 14yo who installed VNC on your machine and is just fucking with you"
Which is probably what it was. My guess is: Some 14yo didn't like her political views and decided to fuck with her, and used some social engineering tricks to make her think it was the big bad gubmint.
Betcha the classified documents came from Wikileaks or were forgeries.
Teenagers don't give a crap about political views, they'd do it just for fun.
Indubitably. Win10 Test is a product demo. So Microsoft is going to monitor it in a way that would be unfeasible for a shipping OS. They're trying to collect user data to make sure people are using Win10 the way they THINK people are going to use it. This is a byproduct of the Windows 8 metro/modern UI fiasco. If they don't disable/remove this level of monitoring when the OS ships, corporate customers will simply opt not to run with the OS...AGAIN.
Seriously, NO company that's in ANY way serious about security is going to put up with a built in keylogger that's reporting back to MommySoft.
Apple is doing the same thing with a live, shipping OS. Which is completely fucking heinous.
Now, will they get away with it?
Probably, because the rabid, turtleneck-and-jeans brigade of Mac fanatics will buy absolutely ANYTHING from Apple, so long as it has the Apple logo on it.
LOL
iOS is based on OS X, which is a proper UNIX.
As I stated elsewhere on this page, no, iOS is based on BSD. OS X is also based on BSD, but that doesn't mean iOS is based on OS X.
There are many similarities, but for obvious reasons, they had to strip a lot out in iOS to make it practical for mobile hardware.
And no, BSD isn't UNIX, nor is OS X. They are posix-compliant operating systems, like Linux, AUX, and HP UX. None of them are actually UNIX anymore. All split from actual UNIX long ago. But they are all "unix-like" operating systems.
Well since we're all nitpicking, UNIX(R) is a trademark, just like POSIX(R) and you can call your butt either one if it's certified.
_If_ the above systems are actually certified to be POSIX compliant to some degree, they could also be a test away from being UNIX certified, to some degree.
IF we're just calling all the above "[POSIX|UNIX]-like", they all qualify... to some degree.
They made alsa so they would not be used as free bug testers and squashers like they did when the OSS sound system was in the kernel.
Oh the hypocrisy.
"Free bug testers and squashers" - that is exactly what the user community is for every OSS project, ever.
See what I did there?
I mainly use it for reminders...
"Remind me to clean my AC filter in 2 weeks"
"Remind me to pay my car taxes on October 25th"
"Remind me to do the laundry when I get home"
Stuff like that and it works great. I don't really use it for texting or notes since it makes too many mistakes but I think that's more of my problem. I feel weird talking to a computer so I talk weird and not loud enough.
Directions while driving, or just for an ETA, you can say "ETA to work" if it has your work address.
Sending a quick text while driving "Be there 20 minutes late" "send it" is better than actually texting, or calling - if you don't have hands free.
I've used it to do some quick math while I was driving, milage maybe? It's all stuff you can do with a little tapping, you just need to get over the notion that you're asking someone to do these dumb/lazy things for you. Even for stuff you would be ok asking someone in the passenger seat to do like directions, Siri is still faster...
Car taxes? The fuck dystopian country do you live in?
I know counties in Virginia do it
http://www.pwcgov.org/governme...
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/d...
Apparently the state started doing it recently
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/v...
Maine has done it as long as I remember, and your town gets the money.
http://www.maine.gov/revenue/p...
I felt these were nice places to live...
That is all.
Terrorists don't give a crap about your airline experience.
Queue up First World Problems.
They are much more concerned with politics, religion and ideology, and the use of violence or threats to those ends. Hold on, that might actually be the definition of terrorism, you all might want to check. If it's not aimed at changing minds, terrorism is probably not the word you are looking for.
Believe it or not, there are people out there that would kill you because you disagree with them, or just... because. When they do we call them "Murderers". That's just one of the things your country tries to prevent with their inconvenient security policies.
I'm completely fine seeing things move away from the older "GUI driving non-interactive commands in the background" model, to GUIs and CLIs that are built on shared libraries, because that potentially gives us THREE usable interfaces. However, is it normal for a CLI to lag behind the GUI now in Linuxland?
I see that blivet comes from Anaconda, so I expect some integration there.
It seems like a good CLI could be used to avoid the awkward practice of writing out a kickstart partition fragment from the pre section. We could just drive Anaconda's partitioning directly from %pre with shell logic instead of pooping out Anaconda-ese to be parsed later.
So where's my damned anaconda partitioning CLI already, this would affect more [important] people than yet another partition GUI!!
Do you feel that way about, say, grenades and stuff?
Oh God, don't go there, People defending the right of 70 pound gilrs to blow the head off of range instructors with automatic pistols on "Guns and God" vacations will ge really pissed now.
Amen, girls should weigh at least 75 pounds to blow the heads off range instructors, write your congressmen!
A properly designed browser using *nix philosophy wouldn't do those things directly, instead it would use plugins to add that functionality.
An init system should do one thing and do it well, manage the startup of services when called. A proper *nix designed system for monitoring and restart would CALL init, but it shouldn't BE init, otherwise it violates the principle of modularity.
Consider for example looking for all the active settings in a standard Linux config file:
grep -v ^# ldap.conf | tr -s '\n'
By using two standard tools you can do something pretty fancy, basically stripping out all the comments. Could grep be enhanced to include the newline trimming feature? Of course it could, but that's not grep's job, its purpose is to match things not trim things. By keeping the scope narrow you reduce the error space and provide a more flexible toolset.
If you design the monitoring system into init then it can't be used generically to monitor other things and you lose half the value of the tool you've created.
egrep -v '^#|^$' ldap.conf ?
You're deciding boundaries arbitrarily. For example, who decided all the functions of tr belong in one command? Why are we even comparing userland tools to system functions? Why do you use dd to do EBCDIC-ACSII translation instead of ... the translate command?
How old is SysV init? How has its "Well I assume I started something, JOB'S DONE!" interface with the rest of the system benefitted us all this time? How can you even connect that to something? You can't trust the exit codes from.. well anything, start/stop/or status because too many scripts just return 0. You can't trust status to exist everywhere or even work right. You can't trust a stop to actually kill all processes.
If nobody is going to make init in its current bounds _determinate_, then who really cares if the replacement is more or less modular.
What's funny is it actually has the ability, and nobody uses it except for gettys.
This. Actually, in RHEL/CentOS, you can simply run /etc/rc every minute via cron and it'll sync what's running with what's supposed to be, assuming things have been /sbin/service stopped. (And if they haven't been cleanly stopped, you need a specialized tool that understands how to *TEST* the service rather than rely on subsys.)
It's not THAT hard.
Let's use Apache as an example.
Typical Apache screw up... user reports site is not responding
apachectl restart says ports are already in use...
apachectl stop /facetokeyboard
pgrep httpd... see's the old httpd session leader and some friends chilling out.
"You stupid P.O.S."
pkill -9 httpd
apachectl start
Many of us have been here, and it's very dumb. A modernized service control system should have a basic two way channel to the daemons.
You stay on the line or get whacked, and while you're alive you deal with all your child process problems and let us know.
What's that specialized tool supposed to do that the service itself cannot? This really simple system lets you know all the shades of gray between "running" and "stopped"
Like:
"starting, but I need to do a consistency check, and this may take a while"
"running, sort of..."
"stopping, well I'm not available anymore, but you can't start me again yet"
"I know enough to stop trying on my own until an operator intervenes"
That sounds like a good way to create an infinite loop of crashing and restarting services.
I read about this sweet new trick in Windows 2000 where you can configure a number of automatic service restart attempts, the interval between them, and an interval in which that count might reset and start over if you want it to.
Honestly, I think the two "sides" here are really the one that has cursory knowledge of the evolution of other operating systems over the past two decades and the side that's basically 90's Linux-Amish.
Nothing is broken with Linux. But by now I believe something very fundamental is broken in a highly dangerous fashion with the systemd developers. They hardly seem to qualify as UNIX folks at all with their mind-set....
Linux systems are basically the least unixy "unix-like" systems around. It's a bit late in the game to be a UNIX purist on Linux IMHO. Do what works best.