Remember how Jeff Bezos just recently said that once Amazon stopped focusing on customers, it was going to be the beginning of the end of Amazon? Intel stopped focusing on customers the moment it knowingly sacrificed security to maintain its near-monopoly on CPU's. While AMD has some issues with its chips, those issues pale in comparison to the wholesale don't-give-a-shit practiced by Intel.
I hope Intel has a huge, massively expensive decline.
Event IF this were a BGP hijack rather than a misconfiguration error and even IF they had minted Google.com certs trusted by the default root stores...
And IF Cloud Computer equaled Google, you would have at least a semi-reasonable argument. But this ISN'T just about Google, and you're definitely missing the bigger picture. This is about the very nature of trusting some untrustworthy third party data sieve (be it Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) to go against its own nature and keep your secrets secret. This particular failure is simply an indicator of what HAS happened, what IS happening, and what WILL happen to people stupid enough to trust their data to, "Theeee Clouuuud" (use your Toy Story green alien chorus voice).
Yes, this would cause an outage, which costs time and money, but your information does not wind up in the hands of your competitors.
You have just failed the I.Q. test.
Cloud services can fail in a nearly infinite number of ways. Just look at how easy Amazon made it to broadcast secrets to the world. ALL major cloud providers have weak security. One failure could result in publishing names, addresses, and social security numbers to the world (which has happened more than once); and the next failure could result in publishing the latest jet fighter specifications to Russia and China. This failure mode is unique to Cloud computing.
That you think this is conspiracy theory territory should ban you from ever managing sensitive data, as you have demonstrated an ASTOUNDING lack of common sense. Those damn trees are severely limiting your view of the forest.
But sure, by all means, put your important information on someone else's servers you have no control over. What could possibly go wrong? Oh, right, all of your important information could be shunted off to your competitors. But that's not a big deal, right?
This is an I.Q. test masquerading as a technical issue.
When one party has been ghosted, that means there is an unanswered question.
When one party has been ghosted, all relevant questions have already been answered: the ghoster is immature, and the person being ghosted has dodged a bullet.
But realistically, why bother except showing off you did it?
1) There are people for whom the hardware is great, but the operating system sucks.
2) Eventually, Apple will cripple the operating system to sell new hardware, and lots of people will discard perfectly good hardware. Being able to install Linux on it will keeps lots of toxic waste out of landfills for much longer.
...it does not provide improvement to the speed of light OTA.
Nor does it solve the two most important terrestrial problems that exist with today's Internet: high speed coverage in rural areas, and last mile delivery that bypasses the local wire monopolies. Starlink promises to solve both of them. I just wish it were available RIGHT NOW, so I could tell both AT&T and Mediacomm to piss off.
While no browser is completely secure, EVERYTHING is more secure than I.E./Edge. And while no operating system is completely secure, most everything is more secure than Windows (which has very little to do with its market dominance; its security is like Swiss cheese) or MacOS (which sacrifices a lot of security to make it shiny).
Yes, Linux is WAY more security than both of them combined, but Javascript and Intel-based CPU's are the major vectors for concern nowadays. Both of them significantly negate all operating system security, and should be relegated to the shitcan of history.
Since Red Hat has only ever been good as a server operating system (and it ceased being good at that around Redhat 5), I recommend going straight to the mother of operating systems: Debian.
1 lb of organic produce will have more nutrients than 1 lb of the produce grown with fertilizers from the same seed stock.
It's even simpler than that: Organically grown food is devoid of the poisons used to grow non-organic food: chemical pesticides and genetic modification. All those poisons sprayed on non-organic crops are damaging to human bodies. And over time, those damages accumulate into an greatly increased risk of severe bodily malfunction.
This should be common sense, but (once again) the chemical industry has done a wonderfully successful job of brainwashing the masses into thinking that spraying our food with poison is somehow acceptable. And that genetically modifying our foods into something our bodies don't recognize is also somehow, "progress."
...he doesn't simply use a debugger to step through the problematic code?
That misses the entire point. In the class of problem he is describing, everything looks fine at the debugging level (regardless of how you are debugging). Or better yet: your debugging tools show that something is wrong, yet how the program gets into that state is elusive. You have traced the program execution in excruciating detail, and everything looks great until the very next line of code morphs your perfect execution state into a problematic one for reasons that appear to be impossible. Eventually, you figure out how it's possible, write a small amount of code that you should have written earlier in the process, and fix the problem.
You then realize the obviousness of the solution, and feel like an idiot for having spent hours, days, weeks, or months figuring it out.
It seems like Intel bought into the whole "Post PC" nonsense. It would be interesting to find out if AMD was similarly hoodwinked, or whether it has a ready supply of both low end and high end processors to fill the vacuum left by Intel's mismanagement.
This is an opportunity for AMD to get much closer to Intel's magical 20% of the server market.
As many of us have said for the last several years, desktop PC's aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Mobile devices will augment, not replace, the desktop PC market. It is one of the many things that Star Trek accurately predicted back in the 1960's.
...they will realize how small a niche it really fills.
Blockchain has exactly one niche: hide identity from prying eyes (which is relatively easy to overcome for someone with sufficient motivation). In ALL other cases, traditional databases are a far better fit.
They should've known they'd catch hell for this so why do it only to have to walk it back?
They knew they would catch hell for it, but they also knew there would be no real consequences. In the meantime, maybe they could get more suckers to try Edge before Microsoft had to stop its attempt to leverage its desktop monopoly to get back into browsers.
I would hazard that, despite all the quantum mechanical masturbation, no one has ever done it, or even been able to point to anyone or anything as having actually done it, ever, as being the primary reason.
No it's not. Just because all the bad actors act the same doesn't make the bad behavior any better. They all still suck.
I still have saved games from 15 years ago on my hard drive, and sometimes I still play those old games from time to time. And I don't have to pay someone in perpetuity for them. This article is yet another reminder of who owns your data when you store them on someone else's machine.
How many times over the years has someone handed you their old busted laptop and asked you if you could please recover all their old photos from there please?
Soon to be replaced with someone handing you their old busted laptop and asking if you can recover all their old photos from the Cloud that Microsoft unilaterally decided to delete. Or if you can recover the mission-critical programs that no longer run because Microsoft unilaterally decided you needed to buy them all over again. Or that Microsoft unilaterally decided were too much of a threat to allow to run at all.
Yeah, this is a tremendously stupid idea for end users, and a great idea for Microsoft.
Of course, I decided that running Windows was a bad idea back in 1995 (when I was still dual booting), and a tremendously stupid idea back in 1999 (when I switched to Linux exclusively).
Don't enable the "Files On-Demand" function and it'll make every file available always.
That thud you just heard was my jaw dropping to the floor. How many times does Microsoft have to ignore user settings before people stop using the, "your Microsoft ass reaming is a selectable option that Microsoft will always honor"?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember how Jeff Bezos just recently said that once Amazon stopped focusing on customers, it was going to be the beginning of the end of Amazon? Intel stopped focusing on customers the moment it knowingly sacrificed security to maintain its near-monopoly on CPU's. While AMD has some issues with its chips, those issues pale in comparison to the wholesale don't-give-a-shit practiced by Intel.
I hope Intel has a huge, massively expensive decline.
May it continue to sink and (hopefully) sink fast!
As long as Bitcoin is valued above zero, it is experiencing a bubble inconsistent with the fundamentals of reality.
I had misread, "Nigeria's Main One Cable Company" as, "Nigeria's One Man Cable Company," which, frankly, would have made more sense.
Event IF this were a BGP hijack rather than a misconfiguration error and even IF they had minted Google.com certs trusted by the default root stores...
And IF Cloud Computer equaled Google, you would have at least a semi-reasonable argument. But this ISN'T just about Google, and you're definitely missing the bigger picture. This is about the very nature of trusting some untrustworthy third party data sieve (be it Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) to go against its own nature and keep your secrets secret. This particular failure is simply an indicator of what HAS happened, what IS happening, and what WILL happen to people stupid enough to trust their data to, "Theeee Clouuuud" (use your Toy Story green alien chorus voice).
Yes, this would cause an outage, which costs time and money, but your information does not wind up in the hands of your competitors.
You have just failed the I.Q. test.
Cloud services can fail in a nearly infinite number of ways. Just look at how easy Amazon made it to broadcast secrets to the world. ALL major cloud providers have weak security. One failure could result in publishing names, addresses, and social security numbers to the world (which has happened more than once); and the next failure could result in publishing the latest jet fighter specifications to Russia and China. This failure mode is unique to Cloud computing.
That you think this is conspiracy theory territory should ban you from ever managing sensitive data, as you have demonstrated an ASTOUNDING lack of common sense. Those damn trees are severely limiting your view of the forest.
But sure, by all means, put your important information on someone else's servers you have no control over. What could possibly go wrong? Oh, right, all of your important information could be shunted off to your competitors. But that's not a big deal, right?
This is an I.Q. test masquerading as a technical issue.
When one party has been ghosted, that means there is an unanswered question.
When one party has been ghosted, all relevant questions have already been answered: the ghoster is immature, and the person being ghosted has dodged a bullet.
But realistically, why bother except showing off you did it?
1) There are people for whom the hardware is great, but the operating system sucks.
2) Eventually, Apple will cripple the operating system to sell new hardware, and lots of people will discard perfectly good hardware. Being able to install Linux on it will keeps lots of toxic waste out of landfills for much longer.
...it does not provide improvement to the speed of light OTA.
Nor does it solve the two most important terrestrial problems that exist with today's Internet: high speed coverage in rural areas, and last mile delivery that bypasses the local wire monopolies. Starlink promises to solve both of them. I just wish it were available RIGHT NOW, so I could tell both AT&T and Mediacomm to piss off.
Let me know when you find one.
While no browser is completely secure, EVERYTHING is more secure than I.E./Edge. And while no operating system is completely secure, most everything is more secure than Windows (which has very little to do with its market dominance; its security is like Swiss cheese) or MacOS (which sacrifices a lot of security to make it shiny).
Yes, Linux is WAY more security than both of them combined, but Javascript and Intel-based CPU's are the major vectors for concern nowadays. Both of them significantly negate all operating system security, and should be relegated to the shitcan of history.
Why wouldn't the only relevant issue be Linux's new Code of Conduct (C.u.C.)?
Shouldn't that be Code of Conduct for Kernel Experienced Developers (Co.C.K.E.D)?
I'm going to have to switch to Ubuntu.
Since Red Hat has only ever been good as a server operating system (and it ceased being good at that around Redhat 5), I recommend going straight to the mother of operating systems: Debian.
1 lb of organic produce will have more nutrients than 1 lb of the produce grown with fertilizers from the same seed stock.
It's even simpler than that: Organically grown food is devoid of the poisons used to grow non-organic food: chemical pesticides and genetic modification. All those poisons sprayed on non-organic crops are damaging to human bodies. And over time, those damages accumulate into an greatly increased risk of severe bodily malfunction.
This should be common sense, but (once again) the chemical industry has done a wonderfully successful job of brainwashing the masses into thinking that spraying our food with poison is somehow acceptable. And that genetically modifying our foods into something our bodies don't recognize is also somehow, "progress."
If you're implying the Dolphin was a humongous, mind-numbingly, horrendously stupid idea, I'm inclined to agree with you.
...is this essentially mind uploading?
No, this is nothing of the sort. It's no more mind uploading than taking a picture is soul stealing. This is much more high definition texturing.
...he doesn't simply use a debugger to step through the problematic code?
That misses the entire point. In the class of problem he is describing, everything looks fine at the debugging level (regardless of how you are debugging). Or better yet: your debugging tools show that something is wrong, yet how the program gets into that state is elusive. You have traced the program execution in excruciating detail, and everything looks great until the very next line of code morphs your perfect execution state into a problematic one for reasons that appear to be impossible. Eventually, you figure out how it's possible, write a small amount of code that you should have written earlier in the process, and fix the problem.
You then realize the obviousness of the solution, and feel like an idiot for having spent hours, days, weeks, or months figuring it out.
... can't believe it takes so much code to do something that seemed so straightforward.
While that happens too, it is on the other end of the spectrum of what Eric is describing.
It seems like Intel bought into the whole "Post PC" nonsense. It would be interesting to find out if AMD was similarly hoodwinked, or whether it has a ready supply of both low end and high end processors to fill the vacuum left by Intel's mismanagement.
This is an opportunity for AMD to get much closer to Intel's magical 20% of the server market.
As many of us have said for the last several years, desktop PC's aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Mobile devices will augment, not replace, the desktop PC market. It is one of the many things that Star Trek accurately predicted back in the 1960's.
Maybe they've abandoned that philosophy.
Can you blame them? It's never worked.
...they will realize how small a niche it really fills.
Blockchain has exactly one niche: hide identity from prying eyes (which is relatively easy to overcome for someone with sufficient motivation). In ALL other cases, traditional databases are a far better fit.
They should've known they'd catch hell for this so why do it only to have to walk it back?
They knew they would catch hell for it, but they also knew there would be no real consequences. In the meantime, maybe they could get more suckers to try Edge before Microsoft had to stop its attempt to leverage its desktop monopoly to get back into browsers.
Why do we assume we only move forward in time?
I would hazard that, despite all the quantum mechanical masturbation, no one has ever done it, or even been able to point to anyone or anything as having actually done it, ever, as being the primary reason.
If they are not, then this article is FUD.
No it's not. Just because all the bad actors act the same doesn't make the bad behavior any better. They all still suck.
I still have saved games from 15 years ago on my hard drive, and sometimes I still play those old games from time to time. And I don't have to pay someone in perpetuity for them. This article is yet another reminder of who owns your data when you store them on someone else's machine.
How many times over the years has someone handed you their old busted laptop and asked you if you could please recover all their old photos from there please?
Soon to be replaced with someone handing you their old busted laptop and asking if you can recover all their old photos from the Cloud that Microsoft unilaterally decided to delete. Or if you can recover the mission-critical programs that no longer run because Microsoft unilaterally decided you needed to buy them all over again. Or that Microsoft unilaterally decided were too much of a threat to allow to run at all.
Yeah, this is a tremendously stupid idea for end users, and a great idea for Microsoft.
Of course, I decided that running Windows was a bad idea back in 1995 (when I was still dual booting), and a tremendously stupid idea back in 1999 (when I switched to Linux exclusively).
...but you can still choose not to save to OneDrive at all.
I refer you to the selectable option to not downgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 as a reference to how much Microsoft cares about your choices.
Don't enable the "Files On-Demand" function and it'll make every file available always.
That thud you just heard was my jaw dropping to the floor. How many times does Microsoft have to ignore user settings before people stop using the, "your Microsoft ass reaming is a selectable option that Microsoft will always honor"?