This is twice in the last couple days, I've been browsing slashdot comments on my android phone in chrome. Suddenly my browser is redirected to a spammy page with a data:text/html;base64 url. The full URL is below. The spammy website won't let me go back and just keeps me on the page. This shit is unacceptable slashdot. Fix your fucking advertisers.
Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.
Yeah, it's a long fucking string of letters. You should know. You gave it to me to begin with. OK, since I can't post it, I'll pastebin it
This really feels like viral advertising. None of it really makes sense to me any other way. From the explanations that are just vague enough to make you say "WTF?" before you go hunting for more info, to the fact that they banning the video, all the way to the person who posted the videos saying
"There are more spoilers than you probably realize with this game," Daymeeuhn wrote in the post. "I'm only a couple hours in, barely touched a few planets, and already I've had many FUCK YEAH moments. On the one hand, I'd love to share those with you, but in the other hand, Sean is right... why not just wait and experience them firsthand? I dunno. The first videos I posted were perfect—they spoiled nothing and just showed a taste."
Huh? There are spoilers here, but we didn't actually post any spoilers? Oh, but I should probably just go experience it firsthand, right? OK, I guess I'll run right out an buy a copy.
If you could return the car brand new in the shinkwrap, never used, then perhaps a refund might make sense. But cars suffer wear and tear. The guy could have driven over a series of speed bumps at 30-40 miles an hour, doing significant damage that maynot yet be evident under a typical inspection. Plus already having an owner on the title affects value, and possibly even the next owner's ability to finance it as new rather than used. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a full refund, but I agree that "buy buy" is probably pretty misleading for the vast majority of customer.
Also, the reason he had to file the lawsuit is that he probably did want a full refund, rather than the buy back which surely was in the contract he signed (we can't go understanding what we signed, now can we).
Also, interesting thing about the guy's auto-park-fail video. First, he never shows us what's inside the garage, so who know what might be obstructing the cars path. 2nd, you notice the car stops it's autopark the very second that his motion sensitive garage light turns on. That seems like a very interesting coincidence.
LOL. And this is where the cops tell you that a billing/payment dispute between yourself and a company you had a business relationship, and whom you had previously authorized them to deduct payments from your bank account, is a matter for the courts, not the cops.
WTF...the client, which is in the hands of thousands of potentially-hostile vendors, has control over the transaction and is allowed to decide whether it is committed or not AFTER receiving the winning/losing info?
But that implementation failure aside, I sure hope they fired whoever had the brilliant idea to have printable instant tickets. That's just insane. Having a printable ticket that is instantly identifiable as a winner/loser is just asking for fraud. Aside from the absolutely terrible design of the system in this story, even in a properly designed system, it would be easy to cheat. You setup a system that, when a ticket is printed, a computer scans it and decides if it's a winner. If it is, you keep it for yourself and instantly print up another ticket to hand over to the customer. This is exactly why almost all instant ticket have scratch off covering to conceal the answer and instantly identify tampering to the customer buying it.
The hype here is just ridiculous. This could be as revolutionary as well American Express partnered with Twitter to allow you to make purchases with tweets. We're all buying stuff with Twitter now aren't we? Anyone?
Exactly, and there's other apps too. I don't recall if it was in another slashdot discussion or somewhere else, but this topic came up recently and someone pointed to some sort of documentation or other official info on the matter. The gist of it was that apps only have a limited (short) amount of time to run in the background, and then they are forced to shut down. It then went on to say that certain apps that have permissions for certain things can continue to run.
So in summary, apps are not allowed to continue running in the background....unless they are allowed to do so. Which makes the entire argument of "you don't have to manually close them" complete bullshit. Maybe you don't need to for MOST apps, but there are still plenty that do have the permission to continue running.
I'd give you the LMGTFY link, but I'm sure you can do that for yourself. Yes, it's exactly what you think, and yes it's happening. Japan's central bank (Bank of Japan) adopted negative rates last month. There's been a few European banks that did the same thing over the last 5 years or so.
We aren't talking about new versions. He was saying that they were going to later charge people to use the version of Windows 10 they upgrade to today
I don't think that's what he was saying. In fact, he explicitly said "All they have said is that it is free for the life of the device". So he was clearly saying it would be free forever on that device. Thus I thought his point was either, 1) they'll charge you when you upgrade to the next version (which as we can see from current situation, they like forcing down it your throat), or 2) they'll charge you for the same windows 10 once you need to buy a new device (which, if you want to put your tin foil hat on, they can control by forcing patches on you that decrease performance for your old hardware).
I don't know if I'd say it was 1 or 2 bad models that plagued seagate. When I buy drives, I go by the ratings on amazon and newegg, and regardless of the drive model it seems there's always a lot more reviews of seagate drives failing than other brands.
Since when are banks that issue payment cards no longer willing to let a cardmember add a joint account holder?
Why would I want to become an authorized user and have her card show up on my credit report? The current system works very well.
Then perhaps that bank needs to Discover some cardmembers that aren't you.
LOL...with as much money as I've made off them? Not a chance. They've done many things to annoy me, but I've made about $2500 off them in the last 6 months alone. I can deal with separate accounts.
Very convoluted trail you are leading me down to avoid cookies.
For simple browser tabs, I have no interest in multiple windows logins. And besides...that doesn't even address the 1 example I gave. I need to login to the same website with multiple credentials while keeping the tab open. I don't want to have to "switch user" every time I go back and forth. And I have no idea where you are going with the authorize-to-make-payments thing. To make the payments, I have to log into the bank's website with the appropriate credentials. And there's no way most banks are going to let me pay her card from my account. Hell...Discover, for example, won't even let me manage my own two cards from the same account...I need a separate online account for each card.
What does contributing browser extensions or patches accomplish? The specification itself needs to be fixed. And how do you suggest I "contrbute browser patches" to something like IE/Edge? And extensions serves no purpose, as only a minority of people install them. Even something as widespread as adblocking is only installed for something like 10% of users last time I checked.
Sorry, its just broken. Cookies, on the other hand, work perfectly fine for 99% of users. Good enough for me.
A user who is ending his or her browser session so that another user can begin a session will be closing all tabs anyway.
What? Says who? My wife and I login on the same browser all the time without closing tabs. In fact, I do this all the time when paying bills. Have one tab open with my online banking account, another tab open with my bills spreadsheet, open a 3rd tab to login to my credit card. I setup a payment to my card and log it in the spreadsheet. Logout on the 3rd tab, login to my wife's card account at the same bank, setup a payment on her card, log it in my spreadsheet. Then finally I use the online banking again to shift the necessary money between checking and saving.That's just one of many examples where we do that.
Beside that, there's just the matter of security. I'm not closing my browser because I need to keep pages open, but I want to logout of websites so that I'm no longer using. I shouldn't have to close all my tabs to do that
You're trying very hard to contrive some arrangement that makes basic authentication look like it's not utterly broken, but sorry...it's utterly broken. Why do you think almost nobody uses it? Do you think nobody knows about it?
If you're buffering 30(minutes)*60(seconds per minute)*250(MBps video, which is HD-quality)=450GB...That's about 6 weeks
WTF? Where do you get that figure from? Cable TV and OTA HD broadcasts are about 8 GB per hour. Even Bluray disks at their max bitrate of 40Mbps equates to only 18GB per hour. At 450GB/30 minutes, you are talking about uncompressed HD video. Almost nobody works with that, and of those that do, I doubt very many are using it to record uncompressed HD 24/7 for 6 weeks straight. If for some reason you are doing so, I can't imagine what you'd be doing (hollywood movie studio post production or something), but I'd bet that it would probably be churning enough cash for you so that it'd be no big deal to replace your SSD every 6 weeks and just bill it to the project.
OK, so at 100TB you'd start losing total drive capacity, right? I'll assume for the moment that the drives' controller would detect dead blocks/cells during a write operation and would perform the relocation/remapping seamlessly and not lose any data. But when it suddenly 'failed' would there be any chance of recovering anything from it? Or is it just bricked at that point?
Depends on the failure mode and the drive design. Some of the Intel drives, for example, are designed so that once they reach their rated write limit, they switch themselves into read only mode (even if they haven't yet encountered their first error) until powered down, at which point they brick themselves. Pretty stupid design IMHO (why not just leave it permanently read-only to give you an extended chance to copy off the data).
The largest recording I've ever seen off of cable TV is about 8GB/hr. I know OTA broadcasts can be slightly bigger, so lets say 10GB/hr. To record that 24/7 requires about 87 TB/year.
Many of the drives ended up getting close to 1 PB of writes, and the best even got over 2PB. Thats enough for you to run 2 tuners 24/7 for a decade. And note, their tests were with 250GB drives. As you increase SSD capacity, longevity increases almost linearly. If you were building a DVR, you'd probably want something like a 1TB drive.
As far as the original question of whether the SSD can outlive HDD in the most extreme application....probably at the most extreme, no. But for the vast majority of cases, including a DVR, most likely yes.
This answer has a script that logs the user out of basic auth by replacing stored credentials with wrong credentials.
That's awesome. And I totally expect that users who want to disable all cookies from my website are going to be thrilled to let me run javascript on their website instead.
In short, I've never seen a good, clean, reliable way to link a user to a session that doesn't involve cookies. If you've got the magic solution to that, please...I'm all ears.
Have the user create a username and password and use RFC 7617 basic authentication. Or have the user create a TLS client certificate.
teach me how to logout (note: "close your browser" is not an acceptable answer) and I might stop despising basic authentication.
TLS client certificate? lol...ok, I'm sure all my users will love that. I'll get on that right away.
Apparently you didn't see where I said "good, clean"
Slashdot Mirror
This is twice in the last couple days, I've been browsing slashdot comments on my android phone in chrome. Suddenly my browser is redirected to a spammy page with a data:text/html;base64 url. The full URL is below. The spammy website won't let me go back and just keeps me on the page. This shit is unacceptable slashdot. Fix your fucking advertisers.
Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.
Yeah, it's a long fucking string of letters. You should know. You gave it to me to begin with. OK, since I can't post it, I'll pastebin it
http://pastebin.com/PVumFUiA
1001001
This really feels like viral advertising. None of it really makes sense to me any other way. From the explanations that are just vague enough to make you say "WTF?" before you go hunting for more info, to the fact that they banning the video, all the way to the person who posted the videos saying
"There are more spoilers than you probably realize with this game," Daymeeuhn wrote in the post. "I'm only a couple hours in, barely touched a few planets, and already I've had many FUCK YEAH moments. On the one hand, I'd love to share those with you, but in the other hand, Sean is right... why not just wait and experience them firsthand? I dunno. The first videos I posted were perfect—they spoiled nothing and just showed a taste."
Huh? There are spoilers here, but we didn't actually post any spoilers? Oh, but I should probably just go experience it firsthand, right? OK, I guess I'll run right out an buy a copy.
They are willing to buy back, which is different than the 100% refund he probably wanted.
If you could return the car brand new in the shinkwrap, never used, then perhaps a refund might make sense. But cars suffer wear and tear. The guy could have driven over a series of speed bumps at 30-40 miles an hour, doing significant damage that maynot yet be evident under a typical inspection. Plus already having an owner on the title affects value, and possibly even the next owner's ability to finance it as new rather than used. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a full refund, but I agree that "buy buy" is probably pretty misleading for the vast majority of customer.
Also, the reason he had to file the lawsuit is that he probably did want a full refund, rather than the buy back which surely was in the contract he signed (we can't go understanding what we signed, now can we).
Also, interesting thing about the guy's auto-park-fail video. First, he never shows us what's inside the garage, so who know what might be obstructing the cars path. 2nd, you notice the car stops it's autopark the very second that his motion sensitive garage light turns on. That seems like a very interesting coincidence.
no disassemble
LOL. And this is where the cops tell you that a billing/payment dispute between yourself and a company you had a business relationship, and whom you had previously authorized them to deduct payments from your bank account, is a matter for the courts, not the cops.
WTF...the client, which is in the hands of thousands of potentially-hostile vendors, has control over the transaction and is allowed to decide whether it is committed or not AFTER receiving the winning/losing info?
But that implementation failure aside, I sure hope they fired whoever had the brilliant idea to have printable instant tickets. That's just insane. Having a printable ticket that is instantly identifiable as a winner/loser is just asking for fraud. Aside from the absolutely terrible design of the system in this story, even in a properly designed system, it would be easy to cheat. You setup a system that, when a ticket is printed, a computer scans it and decides if it's a winner. If it is, you keep it for yourself and instantly print up another ticket to hand over to the customer. This is exactly why almost all instant ticket have scratch off covering to conceal the answer and instantly identify tampering to the customer buying it.
The hype here is just ridiculous. This could be as revolutionary as well American Express partnered with Twitter to allow you to make purchases with tweets. We're all buying stuff with Twitter now aren't we? Anyone?
Exactly, and there's other apps too. I don't recall if it was in another slashdot discussion or somewhere else, but this topic came up recently and someone pointed to some sort of documentation or other official info on the matter. The gist of it was that apps only have a limited (short) amount of time to run in the background, and then they are forced to shut down. It then went on to say that certain apps that have permissions for certain things can continue to run.
So in summary, apps are not allowed to continue running in the background....unless they are allowed to do so. Which makes the entire argument of "you don't have to manually close them" complete bullshit. Maybe you don't need to for MOST apps, but there are still plenty that do have the permission to continue running.
These days basically everyone in the gaming industry agrees that the world would be a better place if Konami finally dies in a fire.
...and then dies again 29 more times.
I'd give you the LMGTFY link, but I'm sure you can do that for yourself. Yes, it's exactly what you think, and yes it's happening. Japan's central bank (Bank of Japan) adopted negative rates last month. There's been a few European banks that did the same thing over the last 5 years or so.
We aren't talking about new versions. He was saying that they were going to later charge people to use the version of Windows 10 they upgrade to today
I don't think that's what he was saying. In fact, he explicitly said "All they have said is that it is free for the life of the device". So he was clearly saying it would be free forever on that device. Thus I thought his point was either, 1) they'll charge you when you upgrade to the next version (which as we can see from current situation, they like forcing down it your throat), or 2) they'll charge you for the same windows 10 once you need to buy a new device (which, if you want to put your tin foil hat on, they can control by forcing patches on you that decrease performance for your old hardware).
Apple has never said that they won't charge a subscription for iOS. That doesn't make it any less absurd to say they will.
Yep, those of us with 1st/2nd generation ipod touches know just how absurd it is to think that Apple might charge for iOS updates.
I don't know if I'd say it was 1 or 2 bad models that plagued seagate. When I buy drives, I go by the ratings on amazon and newegg, and regardless of the drive model it seems there's always a lot more reviews of seagate drives failing than other brands.
Since when are banks that issue payment cards no longer willing to let a cardmember add a joint account holder?
Why would I want to become an authorized user and have her card show up on my credit report? The current system works very well.
Then perhaps that bank needs to Discover some cardmembers that aren't you.
LOL...with as much money as I've made off them? Not a chance. They've done many things to annoy me, but I've made about $2500 off them in the last 6 months alone. I can deal with separate accounts.
Very convoluted trail you are leading me down to avoid cookies.
For simple browser tabs, I have no interest in multiple windows logins. And besides...that doesn't even address the 1 example I gave. I need to login to the same website with multiple credentials while keeping the tab open. I don't want to have to "switch user" every time I go back and forth. And I have no idea where you are going with the authorize-to-make-payments thing. To make the payments, I have to log into the bank's website with the appropriate credentials. And there's no way most banks are going to let me pay her card from my account. Hell...Discover, for example, won't even let me manage my own two cards from the same account...I need a separate online account for each card.
What does contributing browser extensions or patches accomplish? The specification itself needs to be fixed. And how do you suggest I "contrbute browser patches" to something like IE/Edge? And extensions serves no purpose, as only a minority of people install them. Even something as widespread as adblocking is only installed for something like 10% of users last time I checked.
Sorry, its just broken. Cookies, on the other hand, work perfectly fine for 99% of users. Good enough for me.
A user who is ending his or her browser session so that another user can begin a session will be closing all tabs anyway.
What? Says who? My wife and I login on the same browser all the time without closing tabs. In fact, I do this all the time when paying bills. Have one tab open with my online banking account, another tab open with my bills spreadsheet, open a 3rd tab to login to my credit card. I setup a payment to my card and log it in the spreadsheet. Logout on the 3rd tab, login to my wife's card account at the same bank, setup a payment on her card, log it in my spreadsheet. Then finally I use the online banking again to shift the necessary money between checking and saving.That's just one of many examples where we do that.
Beside that, there's just the matter of security. I'm not closing my browser because I need to keep pages open, but I want to logout of websites so that I'm no longer using. I shouldn't have to close all my tabs to do that
You're trying very hard to contrive some arrangement that makes basic authentication look like it's not utterly broken, but sorry...it's utterly broken. Why do you think almost nobody uses it? Do you think nobody knows about it?
If you're buffering 30(minutes)*60(seconds per minute)*250(MBps video, which is HD-quality)=450GB...That's about 6 weeks
WTF? Where do you get that figure from? Cable TV and OTA HD broadcasts are about 8 GB per hour. Even Bluray disks at their max bitrate of 40Mbps equates to only 18GB per hour. At 450GB/30 minutes, you are talking about uncompressed HD video. Almost nobody works with that, and of those that do, I doubt very many are using it to record uncompressed HD 24/7 for 6 weeks straight. If for some reason you are doing so, I can't imagine what you'd be doing (hollywood movie studio post production or something), but I'd bet that it would probably be churning enough cash for you so that it'd be no big deal to replace your SSD every 6 weeks and just bill it to the project.
OK, so at 100TB you'd start losing total drive capacity, right? I'll assume for the moment that the drives' controller would detect dead blocks/cells during a write operation and would perform the relocation/remapping seamlessly and not lose any data. But when it suddenly 'failed' would there be any chance of recovering anything from it? Or is it just bricked at that point?
Depends on the failure mode and the drive design. Some of the Intel drives, for example, are designed so that once they reach their rated write limit, they switch themselves into read only mode (even if they haven't yet encountered their first error) until powered down, at which point they brick themselves. Pretty stupid design IMHO (why not just leave it permanently read-only to give you an extended chance to copy off the data).
The largest recording I've ever seen off of cable TV is about 8GB/hr. I know OTA broadcasts can be slightly bigger, so lets say 10GB/hr. To record that 24/7 requires about 87 TB/year.
There was a long term test of SSDs done here:
http://techreport.com/review/2...
Many of the drives ended up getting close to 1 PB of writes, and the best even got over 2PB. Thats enough for you to run 2 tuners 24/7 for a decade. And note, their tests were with 250GB drives. As you increase SSD capacity, longevity increases almost linearly. If you were building a DVR, you'd probably want something like a 1TB drive.
As far as the original question of whether the SSD can outlive HDD in the most extreme application....probably at the most extreme, no. But for the vast majority of cases, including a DVR, most likely yes.
And make the user close all tabs? I'm not hearing a very convincing argument yet.
This answer has a script that logs the user out of basic auth by replacing stored credentials with wrong credentials.
That's awesome. And I totally expect that users who want to disable all cookies from my website are going to be thrilled to let me run javascript on their website instead.
In short, I've never seen a good, clean, reliable way to link a user to a session that doesn't involve cookies. If you've got the magic solution to that, please...I'm all ears.
Have the user create a username and password and use RFC 7617 basic authentication. Or have the user create a TLS client certificate.
teach me how to logout (note: "close your browser" is not an acceptable answer) and I might stop despising basic authentication.
TLS client certificate? lol...ok, I'm sure all my users will love that. I'll get on that right away.
Apparently you didn't see where I said "good, clean"
It will be like experiencing 1997's web all over again!
Except our blink tags will now be CSS3 enabled.